Merged Scalia is dead

[ehcks]

The whole thing?

Privileges and immunities... Life liberty property....due process... Deny....equal protection.

Those are all terms with very specific legal and historical contexts. To say we can just read it and apply it is asinine.

For one, you're trying to claim that legalese is some arcane magic speech that normal people can't understand. For two, you're trying to say that those clear and concise words that anyone in high school can read and understand is legalese.

No and no, sir.

 

[newyorkguy]

You have to look at the context in which the founding fathers wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Politically they had to exclude certain demographics even though some of the framers were not sure that was a moral position or would stand over time.

This is what bothers me the most and is one of the things I liked least about Antonin Scalia. The idea the founding fathers were basically conservative and locked into tradition. That's nonsense. They anticipated that the world would change, they crafted a Constitution that could change with it. There's no racial or gender language in the Constitution; they obviously did not want to freeze our society to where it was in 1776.

The founding fathers were the radicals of their time. In point of fact they were revolutionary. They raised their hands against the monarchy, about the most unconservative thing anyone in their time could do.

 

[Tony Stark]

The whole thing?

Privileges and immunities... Life liberty property....due process... Deny....equal protection.

Those are all terms with very specific legal and historical contexts. To say we can just read it and apply it is asinine.

Nonsense. None of the words are archaic or unclear. If they wanted equal protection to apply to only some people they should have said so. They didn't. And thus we are perfectly free to decide it applies to everyone. Tough **** for the dead bigots if they would disapprove.

 

[tyr_13]

Until you amend it, you are stuck obeying the provision.

Clearly your ideals concept is BS. We are still stuck following the actual Constitution until it changes.

And it just took over 100 years to figure it out? That is laughable.

You don't seem to disagree that the parties at the time understood it to mean it was not covered. How parties act under a contract matters. It had. Much more narrow interpretation we cannot simply wish away in the context of our modern understanding. We are confined to theirs.

Ha, this is the most laughable of arguments. You think you're saying that we have to go with 'what it says', but that's not even what you're saying! You're saying we must go with what you think the writers would have wanted what they said to apply to, instead of what they actually said and what it means.

At the time, they might not have realized that not depriving someone of life or liberty without due process would be incompatible with slavery (in actual fact we know that many of them knew this!), but it absolutely is. They might not have realized that the 14th amendment would cover gay marriage, but what it says does.

We are not confined to theirs, and they knew that. The question isn't even 'what they thought at the time' and not even 'what they would think with the information now' but 'how does what is actually written in the Constitution apply to this situation?'. Sometimes the understanding of concepts at the time enters into that, but not always. Hell, not even most times.

More interesting, but less legally important, is that you're somehow of the belief that what you think they might have thought at the time is somehow what they would think now. You think Jefferson and Franklin, with what is known now, would be against inter-racial or gay marriage? That's crazy!

Your ideas have been given more than enough consideration. You will assert you're correct, but it has no meaning and now that Scalia is dead it will have even less effect on the world. That fallacious and relatively modern line of thought is losing power fast. Your legal theory is almost as dead as it is lacking in merit.

 

[Rare Truth]

Ha, this is the most laughable of arguments. You think you're saying that we have to go with 'what it says', but that's not even what you're saying! You're saying we must go with what you think the writers would have wanted what they said to apply to, instead of what they actually said and what it means.

At the time, they might not have realized that not depriving someone of life or liberty without due process would be incompatible with slavery (in actual fact we know that many of them knew this!), but it absolutely is. They might not have realized that the 14th amendment would cover gay marriage, but what it says does.

We are not confined to theirs, and they knew that. The question isn't even 'what they thought at the time' and not even 'what they would think with the information now' but 'how does what is actually written in the Constitution apply to this situation?'. Sometimes the understanding of concepts at the time enters into that, but not always. Hell, not even most times.

More interesting, but less legally important, is that you're somehow of the belief that what you think they might have thought at the time is somehow what they would think now. You think Jefferson and Franklin, with what is known now, would be against inter-racial or gay marriage? That's crazy!

Your ideas have been given more than enough consideration. You will assert you're correct, but it has no meaning and now that Scalia is dead it will have even less effect on the world. That fallacious and relatively modern line of thought is losing power fast. Your legal theory is almost as dead as it is lacking in merit.

^ What he said.

 

[Rare Truth]

I think the most telling part of what happened last night, and the voices of the larger GOP who immediately said *nope, not gunah confirm anyone* - is they really showed their hand in a disastrous way.

Rather than allowing someone to be proposed before they even begin the shenanigans to delay *throw mud* delay *more mud* delay, they tipped their hand and said NO ONE is even going to get a fair hearing. They are out and out saying *we will not be acting in good faith.*

We'll we knew they don't anyways, but the optics of denying Obama a nominee about two minutes after Scalia stopped breathing might pass with the far right connie crowd, but to the general electorate, it gonna hurt them pretty deeply.

 

[logger]

The founding fathers were the radicals of their time. In point of fact they were revolutionary. They raised their hands against the monarchy, about the most unconservative thing anyone in their time could do.

Lol

In the sixties the left said question authority, now its love your government or you're a racist.

It is quite conservative to distrust government and we do, passionately.

 

[Giordano]

Ha, this is the most laughable of arguments. You think you're saying that we have to go with 'what it says', but that's not even what you're saying! You're saying we must go with what you think the writers would have wanted what they said to apply to, instead of what they actually said and what it means.

At the time, they might not have realized that not depriving someone of life or liberty without due process would be incompatible with slavery (in actual fact we know that many of them knew this!), but it absolutely is. They might not have realized that the 14th amendment would cover gay marriage, but what it says does.

We are not confined to theirs, and they knew that. The question isn't even 'what they thought at the time' and not even 'what they would think with the information now' but 'how does what is actually written in the Constitution apply to this situation?'. Sometimes the understanding of concepts at the time enters into that, but not always. Hell, not even most times.

More interesting, but less legally important, is that you're somehow of the belief that what you think they might have thought at the time is somehow what they would think now. You think Jefferson and Franklin, with what is known now, would be against inter-racial or gay marriage? That's crazy!

Your ideas have been given more than enough consideration. You will assert you're correct, but it has no meaning and now that Scalia is dead it will have even less effect on the world. That fallacious and relatively modern line of thought is losing power fast. Your legal theory is almost as dead as it is lacking in merit.

^This! As I have posted before in regard to Bob's arguments, I view as least a major portion of "libertarianism" as a person stating that "the only truth is what I say it is," and basic human rights mean that "I get to do what I want." In contrast, as these libertarians see it, the ability of others to do things that the libertarian does not like is clearly prevented for..uh… some philosophical reason or other.

 

[logger]

Its hilarious and a wonderful thing that the GOP leadership is going to stick it to the bastard Obama. Finally the right may be figuring out how to fight.

 

[Tony Stark]

Lol

In the sixties the left said question authority, now its love your government or you're a racist.

It is quite conservative to distrust government and we do, passionately.

Though, of course, when a Republican is President, conservatives will say that it is unpatriotic to question the President. Even as he is lying in order to gain support for starting a war or committing war crimes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ha, this is the most laughable of arguments. You think you're saying that we have to go with 'what it says', but that's not even what you're saying! You're saying we must go with what you think the writers would have wanted what they said to apply to, instead of what they actually said and what it means.

At the time, they might not have realized that not depriving someone of life or liberty without due process would be incompatible with slavery (in actual fact we know that many of them knew this!), but it absolutely is. They might not have realized that the 14th amendment would cover gay marriage, but what it says does.

We are not confined to theirs, and they knew that. The question isn't even 'what they thought at the time' and not even 'what they would think with the information now' but 'how does what is actually written in the Constitution apply to this situation?'. Sometimes the understanding of concepts at the time enters into that, but not always. Hell, not even most times.

More interesting, but less legally important, is that you're somehow of the belief that what you think they might have thought at the time is somehow what they would think now. You think Jefferson and Franklin, with what is known now, would be against inter-racial or gay marriage? That's crazy!

Your ideas have been given more than enough consideration. You will assert you're correct, but it has no meaning and now that Scalia is dead it will have even less effect on the world. That fallacious and relatively modern line of thought is losing power fast. Your legal theory is almost as dead as it is lacking in merit.

You say, "what I think it means." If I did that, it would be wrong. I would say the notion that the ratifiers did not intend to support interracial marriage is generally accepted. I have seen "originalists have a loving v Virginia problem" as a common liberal argument.

These marriage and love cases became bedrocks of liberal argument for not adhering to original interpretation because the perception the original interpretation is so clear.

 

[sunmaster14]

Not to mention misuse of the apostrophe ("hero's").

And yet you just mentioned it.

 

[Giordano]

I think the most telling part of what happened last night, and the voices of the larger GOP who immediately said *nope, not gunah confirm anyone* - is they really showed their hand in a disastrous way.

Rather than allowing someone to be proposed before they even begin the shenanigans to delay *throw mud* delay *more mud* delay, they tipped their hand and said NO ONE is even going to get a fair hearing. They are out and out saying *we will not be acting in good faith.*

We'll we knew they don't anyways, but the optics of denying Obama a nominee about two minutes after Scalia stopped breathing might pass with the far right connie crowd, but to the general electorate, it gonna hurt them pretty deeply.

I agree with the concept that promising to object to any candidate really illustrates the absurdity of the Republican response. But I also feel that this type of position has been rolled out before by the Republics previously, and their base seems to approve. Very recently the Republicans in the House (I think) stated that Obama's budget would be dead on arrival long before they even saw it. There are many other cases. Just one example, the Planned Parenthood confrontation, with all the investigations (even in conservative states) to date finding Planned Parenthood not guilty of illegal activity, yet Republican governors and Congress people continuing to depict them as violating the law.

What I don't understand is why the Republicans can't just wait a bit to see the proposed budget, or the proposed Supreme Court nominee, before rejecting them. Just to preserve the appearance of fairness, even if most everyone knows better.

 

[ehcks]

Its hilarious and a wonderful thing that the GOP leadership is going to stick it to the bastard Obama. Finally the right may be figuring out how to fight.

"Sticking it to the libs" has been the entire political platform of the GOP for the past seven years, and most of their platform for about 50 years before that.

That's not fighting. That's having a tantrum.

 

[Belz...]

News flash! The US is still a republic

Debatable.

 

[Elind]

Scalia was the supreme court version of Trump. Better elocution but similar thinking.

 

[Tony Stark]

Its hilarious and a wonderful thing that the GOP leadership is going to stick it to the bastard Obama. Finally the right may be figuring out how to fight.

Will you be laughing if by taking the unprecedented step of leaving a Supreme Court seat open for a year, the Republicans prove to the American people that they worthless obstructionist garbage and thus help to ensure that the Democrats win the White House and the Senate? Will you be laughing if someone more liberal than Obama's nominee replaces Scalia as a result?

If the Republicans are smart, they will confirm a moderate nominee. But they may well not be smart enough to do that. And end up inadvertently sticking it to themselves instead of Obama.

 

[ehcks]

Scalia was the supreme court version of Trump. Better elocution but similar thinking.

I'm not sure phrases such as jiggery-pokery or argle-bargle using "Pure applesauce" to describe a legal complaint are good elocution.

 

[uke2se]

What I don't understand is why the Republicans can't just wait a bit to see the proposed budget, or the proposed Supreme Court nominee, before rejecting them. Just to preserve the appearance of fairness, even if most everyone knows better.

It's possible that the GOP base is so disconnected from reality that it doesn't matter. I mean, look at certain posters in this thread. The only thing that matters to them is "sticking it to Obama". The future governance of the country is secondary to a visceral hatred towards anything perceived as 'liberal'. These people cannot be reasoned with or expected to hold rational positions. Thus, the GOP congress critters acting irrationally is seen as the right thing to do in Crazy Conservative Land.

 

[Giordano]

Dear Bob,

Can I presume that because the framers of the Constitution did not foresee the Internet, that it would be legal for Congress to ban certain political speech on blogs? Or certain forms of weapons not envisioned at the time of the Constitutional Congress. Or do you have some reason to find an out from these "strict constructions" of the intent of the authors of the US Constitution?