Merged Scalia is dead

[sunmaster14]

Liberals don't deplore KSM's waterboarding because of anything about him (besides the fact that he is a human), but rather because waterboarding is torture and therefore immoral. And definitely a war crime.

I have seen liberals express far more disgust at the people involved in KSM's waterboarding than at KSM himself. The hatred for those people, especially Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John Yoo, and the contractors responsible for designing the enhanced interrogration program, goes well beyond anything I've seen against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 (or the countless other atrocities committed by the same people). In fact, I have seen many otherwise reasonable liberals call for the waterboarding of people like Dick Cheney and John Yoo. Apparently in their minds, the only crime deserving of punishment by waterboarding is the defense of waterboarding as a method of interrogation.

 

[Tony Stark]

I have seen liberals express far more disgust at the people involved in KSM's waterboarding than at KSM himself. The hatred for those people, especially Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John Yoo, and the contractors responsible for designing the enhanced interrogration program, goes well beyond anything I've seen against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 (or the countless other atrocities committed by the same people). In fact, I have seen many otherwise reasonable liberals call for the waterboarding of people like Dick Cheney and John Yoo. Apparently in their minds, the only crime deserving of punishment by waterboarding is the defense of waterboarding as a method of interrogation.

That's because those disgusting pieces of crap were acting on behalf of all of us.

 

[elbe]

That's because those disgusting pieces of crap were acting on behalf of all of us.

I don't agree with them, but yeah. The actions of people who represent me mean more to me than the actions of those that don't. KSM may be a bad man who did bad things, but I want my country and it's leaders to represent what I believe the country should.

To go all godwin on it, I might be more disturbed by the Holocaust during WWII, but I'm angrier about the Japanese internment.

 

[Tony Stark]

That involves making a lot of stretches in interpretation from the most obvious answer. Why not just amend the Constitution rather than contort yourself.

Liberals would gladly amend the Constitution to given equal protection to gays. There is of course a huge obstacle to this: Republicans. They are bigots and don't actually want gays to have equal rights.

Thankfully the 14th Amendment calls for equal protection for everyone. It doesn't make exceptions for gays or anyone else. And thus an amendment is unnecessary. Laws against gay marriage have always been unconstitutional.

 

[varwoche]

I have seen liberals express far more disgust at the people involved in KSM's waterboarding than at KSM himself.

This is for approximately the same reason that I might discipline my kids for misbehaving at the grocery store, but I'm unlikely to discipline someone else's kids, even if they're behaving worse than my kids.

This is so elemental that I'm astounded when I see the sentiment that you express here.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Gonna be honest here, that says a bit more about you than it does about anyone else.

Yep.

I have no doubt that whatever feelings of relief or joy you may have over the death of, by all personal accounts, a wonderful human being, are tempered by a sense of embarrassment or impropriety to have such feelings, let alone to express them. And that's good enough, in my book.

I think that one has to actively ignore the words I write to come to the conclusion that I felt relief or joy over his death. I am sincerely saddened by his death. By all accounts he was a loving husband, father, grandfather, and great friend. I simply did not appreciate his impact on our court and jurisprudence.

Your refusal to a acknowledge that this is possible is another indicator of elbe's point above.

 

[Cain]

It's like reducing the Constitution to a 'contract' between the people and our government. It is essentially a political statement, a manifesto.

That sounds more like the Declaration of Independence, which itself was subjected to political compromise. Jefferson originally penned a line condemning slavery, but it was removed at the behest of slave states. As Scalia observes in one of his speeches, neither Hitler nor Lennin would talk about the wonders of "oppression" and "tyranny." It's always couched in other terms. Parts of the Constitution are certainly based on ideals -- securing the blessings of liberty, insuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare. I'm sure similar phrases appears in most other constitutions.

 

[Suddenly]

Thanks for this. I'm really appreciating your analysis of both Scalia and the Constitution in this thread.

Speculating on what the handful of dead guys would say, or did say, or meant to say seems like the entire point of having a Supreme Court.

Why wouldn't the handful of dead guys simply say, "if the document doesn't serve you, change it"?

Considering they designed it to be amended, and promptly did so after ratifying it, I don't think we need to speculate very much at all...

The document itself contains some specific instructions (two senators per state for example) and some principles (cruel and unusual punishment).

Amendment as to the former is a simple matter. We could amend it to make senate seats proportional to population if we wanted.

Amending the latter isn't all that necessary unless we disagree with the principle. We now think, on the whole, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual without layers of mandatory appeals (I'm simplifying a bit). At the time of ratification appeals were rare. It isn't the principle that changed, rather how we define it.

I guess you could amend the constitution to reflect specifics, but given that the framers felt no need to be specific as to what punishments were forbidden, it strikes me as odd that later generations are wed to those specifics that weren't in the document and need to be specific in changing it.

In short, the only thing I see as relevant when looking at the intent of the framers is that the framers obviously did not intend to bind future generations to specifics when they spoke in general terms. That is where, to me, looking to original intent (or original meaning for that matter) collapses on itself. The framers were perfectly capable of being specific, so when they spoke in general terms it seems obvious to me that they were not being specific on purpose and leaving that to future generations.

Even shorter, the founders original intent was for future generations to not defer to the specific beliefs of the founders as to these statements of principle.

 

[Aepervius]

On top of that, he is dead wrong. The vitriol expressed by liberals here far, far outweighs the expressions of sadness (insincere as most of them are) at the death of an intellectual giant.

One can express sincere condolence toward the death of a human. I do. Even if trump died, i would express condolence. Those condolence are toward the family not for the dead person. One can be sincere toward the family while at the same time judging the dead person by their act. You may not like it, but a dead person has no right to suddenly have their legacy white-washed just because they are dead. Being dead does not suddenly make you right or innocent. Whatever.

Which is why you are dead wrong. The vitriol (big word frankly). One can express heartfelt condolence (to the family) but still judge the man for what he was in our view.

When i am dead, I hope my family can get heartfelt condolence.
But i will (posthumously) fight for the right to anybody to judge me by how I lived.

 

[Cain]

I have seen liberals express far more disgust at the people involved in KSM's waterboarding than at KSM himself. The hatred for those people, especially Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John Yoo, and the contractors responsible for designing the enhanced interrogration program, goes well beyond anything I've seen against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 (or the countless other atrocities committed by the same people). In fact, I have seen many otherwise reasonable liberals call for the waterboarding of people like Dick Cheney and John Yoo. Apparently in their minds, the only crime deserving of punishment by waterboarding is the defense of waterboarding as a method of interrogation.

Scalia died of natural causes in his sleep (sometimes called "a millionaire's death"). That's a tad different than an execution or torture plot. I'm particularly euphoric because he was not contained; that is to say, he would be doing harm had he not passed. The prospect of replacing him with a liberal and tilting the balance of the court, though unlikely, also makes his death timely.

 

[Tony Stark]

Scalia died of natural causes in his sleep (sometimes called "a millionaire's death"). That's a tad different than an execution or torture plot. I'm particularly euphoric because he was not contained; that is to say, he would be doing harm had he not passed. The prospect of replacing him with a liberal and tilting the balance of the court, though unlikely, also makes his death timely.

It's just too bad he didn't die a few years ago.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Liberals would gladly amend the Constitution to given equal protection to gays. There is of course a huge obstacle to this: Republicans. They are bigots and don't actually want gays to have equal rights.

Thankfully the 14th Amendment calls for equal protection for everyone. It doesn't make exceptions for gays or anyone else. And thus an amendment is unnecessary. Laws against gay marriage have always been unconstitutional.

Let's stick to the issue I replied to...suddenly discussing pardons or limits on factual innocence on appeal.

 

[Cain]

The document itself contains some specific instructions (two senators per state for example) and some principles (cruel and unusual punishment).

Amendment as to the former is a simple matter. We could amend it to make senate seats proportional to population if we wanted.

This is not true. Article V explicitly forbids amendments that would alter the inherently undemocratic character of the Senate.

"...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article [those clauses should refer to prematurely ending the slave trade]; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

The only way you can make the Senate representative is if each and every state voluntarily decides to surrender its power.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yep.



I think that one has to actively ignore the words I write to come to the conclusion that I felt relief or joy over his death. I am sincerely saddened by his death. By all accounts he was a loving husband, father, grandfather, and great friend. I simply did not appreciate his impact on our court and jurisprudence.

Your refusal to a acknowledge that this is possible is another indicator of elbe's point above.

His death resulted in his removal from the court. No doubt you feel relief or happiness at that result. While you may have preferred that he retire rather than die, I find it doubtful that you are not happier now than you were the moment before learning that he had died, all other things being equal of course.

 

[Suddenly]

This is not true. Article V explicitly forbids amendments that would alter the inherently undemocratic character of the Senate.

"...Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article [those clauses should refer to prematurely ending the slave trade]; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

The only way you can make the Senate representative is if each and every state voluntarily decides to surrender its power.

The general point stands though: It is a specific provision and can be amended. That it has what amounts to a special requirement of a unanimous vote is a good factual catch, but does not affect the larger point of specific vs. general language.

 

[sunmaster14]

<snip>

Which is why you are dead wrong. The vitriol (big word frankly). One can express heartfelt condolence (to the family) but still judge the man for what he was in our view.

Dead wrong about what? Vitriol is not a big word, frankly.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The document itself contains some specific instructions (two senators per state for example) and some principles (cruel and unusual punishment).

Amendment as to the former is a simple matter. We could amend it to make senate seats proportional to population if we wanted.

Amending the latter isn't all that necessary unless we disagree with the principle. We now think, on the whole, that the death penalty is cruel and unusual without layers of mandatory appeals (I'm simplifying a bit). At the time of ratification appeals were rare. It isn't the principle that changed, rather how we define it.

I guess you could amend the constitution to reflect specifics, but given that the framers felt no need to be specific as to what punishments were forbidden, it strikes me as odd that later generations are wed to those specifics that weren't in the document and need to be specific in changing it.

In short, the only thing I see as relevant when looking at the intent of the framers is that the framers obviously did not intend to bind future generations to specifics when they spoke in general terms. That is where, to me, looking to original intent (or original meaning for that matter) collapses on itself. The framers were perfectly capable of being specific, so when they spoke in general terms it seems obvious to me that they were not being specific on purpose and leaving that to future generations.

Even shorter, the founders original intent was for future generations to not defer to the specific beliefs of the founders as to these statements of principle.

What is the upper bound to this? How do you ensure definitions haven't evolved to actually violate the original principles? The following is admittedly an extreme hypothetical: Suppose our language evolves to a new numbering: selfie...1...2. Does that mean States now get what the 1790s would understand as the number 3?

Your ideas work perfectly fine for innovation they couldn't predict. What about undisputed evidence of their stance on a contemporary issue to them? Can we still apply the principle to our modern understanding or should we exercise deference?

 

[Belz...]

This is not true. Article V explicitly forbids amendments that would alter the inherently undemocratic character of the Senate.

How is the senate undemocratic? Because it's not proportional? How is that undemocratic?

 

[ponderingturtle]

I have seen liberals express far more disgust at the people involved in KSM's waterboarding than at KSM himself. The hatred for those people, especially Dick Cheney, George W. Bush, John Yoo, and the contractors responsible for designing the enhanced interrogration program, goes well beyond anything I've seen against the actual perpetrators of 9/11 (or the countless other atrocities committed by the same people). In fact, I have seen many otherwise reasonable liberals call for the waterboarding of people like Dick Cheney and John Yoo. Apparently in their minds, the only crime deserving of punishment by waterboarding is the defense of waterboarding as a method of interrogation.

That makes no sense and it isn't a punishment it is a basic questioning technique and as such why would you now view it as punishment? Asking questions isn't a punishment.

 

[Cain]

The general point stands though: It is a specific provision and can be amended. That it has a special requirement of a unanimous vote is a good factual catch, but does not affect the larger point of specific vs. general language.

But of course getting every state to voluntarily surrender its power is virtually impossible. The Articles of Confederation originally made it so that amendments needed unanimous consent, which may sound nice in theory, but soon proved impractical, so it was supposed to get reworked. Instead delegates secretly drafted a whole new document.

The difficulty with amending the Constitution is the reason so many scholars defend a "loose" interpretation, and claim looseness was the original intent of the Founding Fathers. It's silly to think the Framers knew exactly what they were doing; it was a matter of trial and error. Washington did not believe the Constitution would last more than twenty years. Jefferson famously advocated "perpetual revolution."

The men of the time did not have the sacred reverence we do today, which is probably why they were able to add 12 amendments in almost as many years. If we had kept anything resembling that pace, the Constitution would today have many more amendments. Originally this country had four million people spread out over 13 states. Now we have over 300 million stretched across 50 states.