Fox News
Expand
Browse All Video
Watch Live

You're watching...

Calls for Justice Ginsburg to resign

Details

  • Description

    Did the Supreme Court justice belittle the Constitution?

  • Duration 7:45
  • Date

Clips

Also in this playlist...

Editor's Picks

Auto-advance: ON

Auto-advance
View All

Transcript

This transcript is automatically generated

-- today over Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments about the US constitution.

At least one conservative columnists is now calling on justice Ginsburg to resign.

After she told a reporter that Egypt's revolutionaries.

Should not use the US constitution as a model for their new government.

I would not look to the US constitution if I -- cracking a constitution.

In the year 2012.

I might look at the constitution of South Africa that was -- the deliberate.

An attempt.

To have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced.

Basic human rights.

Had an independent judiciary hits it in the eighties -- -- I think and agree to end piece of work that was done.

Was not ever got a great he's a work.

Stripping us now Julian Epstein democratic campaign consultant and former chief minority counsel to the House Judiciary Committee.

And Ken -- -- director of the center for religious liberty and special counsel at the family research council gentlemen thanks both so much for being here so.

I -- the controversy rolls.

Not you've got William Tucker at the American spectator saying.

She should resign if she can no longer support and defend the constitution as she is sworn to do -- -- -- start with you fair.

I would not say should have to resign because that that belief is widely held up on the judicial laughed and so we'd be asking half of the federal judiciary to resign.

I think it's just an indication -- that elections have consequences we now see why justice Ginsburg gave President Obama a big hug at the beginning of the state of the union.

Because evidently the justice shares President Obama is believed in make it not believing in American exceptionally.

That this is evidently not the best country to model things on it's ironic the same date she was saying that.

Former US ambassador Ken Blackwell was in Egypt hoping to -- -- their election.

-- -- encouraging them to adopt the US constitution as a model for their constitution.

So I think you see the two sides of the American divide on that issue on American exceptional this.

-- she should she seems to like about these other constitutions the enumeration of more rights.

And you know she -- I guess he'd given her preference -- she'd like to see the bill of rights.

Even longer she's not the only Supreme Court justice to suggest something like that even Antonin Scalia.

Said something along these lines not long ago he said.

The bill of rights of the former evil empire the UV -- union of the Soviet socialist republics was much better than ours I -- it literally it was much better.

We guarantee freedom of three to the -- big deal that guarantees freedom of speech press street demonstrations protests up up up up box -- wonderful stuff but he was -- to make the point.

But all those words are just on Paper.

And it's a parchment guarantee it's not an actual guarantee like you would have in this country so is it is controversial as some -- the rate would have us believe.

I think not and I think Ken is looking to make -- campus that from a teapot here.

And to kind of makes them somewhat straw man arguments which -- get Ruth -- -- Ginsburg like most of us on the political left -- political right.

Think that the US constitution was probably the most brilliant legal document ever designed and she said as much in the interview -- -- get into listening for the entire interview.

She -- -- -- -- heavy praise on the US constitution.

What I think she's saying is what a lot of people have said as which has for new country countries like.

Egypt that are developing new democracy's new constitutions they may want to look at.

Newer and more recent experiences in writing these things why is that well because our constitution as brilliant as it was.

Was written three or four centuries ago.

And if you just look at a modern -- controversy for example this week Rick Santorum was quoted as saying that he doesn't believe that the constitution guarantees the right to contraception.

Most legal scholars believe that the privacy right implied in the constitution does.

Guarantee that right.

This is the -- did the fact that the constitution so old using language from three or four centuries ago was the reason.

That we have these kinds of debates I think what Ginsburg was saying.

On questions of individual rights we should look to more recent experiences but that's all these lights out at -- Because it because he's getting to the heart of some of the issues that that are behind this that these dueling philosophies.

Justice Scalia -- you know I don't know that he would wanna expand the bill of rights in the way he was saying about Russia.

Because there is a real question in this country about whether we need amid all -- whether -- you know our creator gave us these rights.

And -- they constitution was meant to limit -- the federal government can give him.

Well that's exactly right -- what justice Ginsburg is saying is that don't take our model but take our money.

-- and it but dean constitutions that she pointed to as good examples to model she looked at Canada she looked at South Africa.

She elected the European charter of human rights.

Those -- that people have a constitutional right to health care so that chips are handled where she comes and on obamacare -- government run government provided health care itself your love of right to a job that means that government should have enough control over the economy.

To determine that you've got a job so it represents -- fundamentally different role.

Of the government vis a vis the state parent and that's I think that I think the justice Ginsburg is -- completely different pages.

That's just -- again here but let me if I can make -- the -- -- that's just false and nowhere in any for comments that she say.

She describes to a fundamental right to health care what she simply said it looked Jean -- Bullock who is in the -- Conservative legal scholar.

In federal society so this is a silly controversy and she has very valid points.

She isn't making a particular.

Argument for or against a particular individual right she's simply saying there are many issues that we've struggled over for many years for example does the fourteenth amendment.

I mean that due process is incorporated into the states should we have the same division of responsibilities between the legislative and and the executive branch or should we have two houses of congress.

But does raise it doesn't just jump it doesn't.

The issues that I think yeah let me get that clarified that once and what she did say I wouldn't look at US I would looked at South Africa.

That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights and had an independent judiciary does seem to be -- to.

Maine and he the first thing he talks about is embracing basic human rights but we all look exactly we all agree -- yeah -- -- Julian finish -- -- -- let's work.

We all agree that the constitution should a company basic human rights we all agree that should have due process we all agree that there should be independent three branches of government.

But within that there -- many many issues that we've debated for centuries her point as if we look to more recent experience with.

Updated English language.

That other countries have used we may be able to more quickly resolve -- it's not a philosophical endorsement or not endorsement of a particular issue.

Back at what Megan what it is it is that it's the philosophy of not believing that you're bound by the constitution's text Julian references.

A write -- a right to privacy that was invented by the Supreme Court and Griswold V Connecticut 1965.

That was the foundation for Roe vs.

Wade.

-- -- decided eight years later so what you're looking at here is a judiciary that believes that if the words on Paper are not enlightened enough.

It is very rolled to take values from -- -- to use their own liberal sensibilities.

Into -- we know the constitution doesn't say those anywhere but -- -- -- constitution was in so in our evolving and maturing society.

We're just saying it's implicit it's in there somewhere.

And that's -- we're getting declarations for all sorts of rights that we the people never voted on an adopted through the constitutional amendment prizes are too quick responses I I can't I gotta go where we're not a minute over a -- you -- -- far greater and I thought that much thank you make him.

-- coming up next a beautiful young.

Load More