Merged Scalia is dead

quadraginta said:
Do you think that the Constitution was written by conservatives, and that rich white slave owners were responsible for the 14th Amendment?

To answer your question, obviously it would be liberals.
Click to expand...

It was clearly written by people that intended interracial and same sex marriage to remain illegal.
 
Tony Stark said:
I don't give a flying **** what the people who wrote the 14th Amendment would think about things like marriage equality.

I care about how reasonable people today interpret it. And 100% of reasonable people today interpret it in such a way as that laws banning gay marriage are unconstitutional. The only reason people like Scalia disagree is because of bigotry/religion. Their textual originalism is just a cover.
Click to expand...

If it is readily apparent what was understood at the timr of ratification, I don't care what reasonable people today think.
 
Desert Fox said:
This is another good one out of Scalia:
“There is no basis in text, tradition, or even in contemporary practice (if that were enough), for finding in the Constitution a right to demand judicial consideration of newly discovered evidence of innocence brought forward after conviction.”
http://news.lawreader.com/2008/08/2...-they-believe-justice-should-trump-procedure/
Click to expand...

Wait. Was he saying that there's no such thing as appealing a case? If you can't consider new evidence after a conviction, then you can't appeal, and the entire appeals court system and even the Supreme Court itself are entirely pointless.
 
BobTheCoward said:
It was clearly written by people that intended interracial and same sex marriage to remain illegal.
Click to expand...

So what. It says nothing about those things. And in fact a reasonable intepretation would say thay those things are unconstitutional. The only reasonable interpretation, in fact. I see no reason whatsoever that we should take the sensibilities of bigots 150 years ago into consideration.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
If it is readily apparent what was understood at the timr of ratification, I don't care what reasonable people today think.
Click to expand...

Where exaxtly in the Constitution does it say that the intepretations of those who wrote it are binding forever?
 
ehcks said:
Wait. Was he saying that there's no such thing as appealing a case? If you can't consider new evidence after a conviction, then you can't appeal, and the entire appeals court system and even the Supreme Court itself are entirely pointless.
Click to expand...

You cannot appeal if there is new evidence. You can appeal if you become aware of evidence that was not disclosed at the time (due process violation). But if it is legitimately new evidence you are out of luck most often.

Or do I have that backwards?
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
So what. It says nothing about those things. And in fact a reasonable intepretation would say thay those things are unconstitutional. The only reasonable interpretation, in fact. I see no reason whatsoever that we should take the sensibilities of bigots 150 years ago into consideration.
Click to expand...

Constitutions by their nature are suicide pacts held to the standards of the ratifiers and applied to future generations. They are their strongest when the original ratifiers demonstrate clearly what a clause meant (the same way courts interpret disputed contracts by the actions of the parties involved).

You shouldn't adhere to the standards set so many years ago. But don't claim you are following the Constitution when you do it.
 
A person is dead. That's cause for sympathy. I don't wish anyone dead. But he lived a full life - 79 is pretty senior - and as things go, I can't find it tragic.

As a Supreme Court Justice, though, I'm happy to be rid of him. This side of the Jim Crow era he was the most reprehensible conservative to sit on the court.

True Conservatives might want to consider that they have a better chance of getting a moderate appointment out of Obama than they will with Hillary or Bernie. If Obama wants to get it done, he's likely to compromise. He's got a potential "call your bluff" move. Srinivasan was confirmed unanimously to the Federal Appeals Court. If those same Senators vote to block strictly on party lines, it shows what it's all about to the GOP.

On the campaign trail, Bernie and Hillary have an easier task. As Dems they can respond to any question about potential appointees with "I cannot talk about names as it might be read as interfering with the duties of a sitting POTUS, but I will discuss my thoughts with our President at the next opportunity."

The GOP candidates should now have their feet put to the fire. "So, you don't like Obama's choice? Who do you have in mind and who would your potential other two appointees be in your first term?"
 
logger said:
That was a nothing more than an attention whore.

The real revolution can be measured in gun and ammunition sales. ;)
Click to expand...

Does that mean that the real revolution has already started? After all the past 8 years have been marked by record gun and ammo sales.
 
Foolmewunz said:
The GOP candidates should now have their feet put to the fire. "So, you don't like Obama's choice? Who do you have in mind and who would your potential other two appointees be in your first term?"
Click to expand...

The Republican Choice
n-ALABAMA-ROY-MOORE-628x314.jpg


Roy Moore - Crazy Alabama chief justice
 
BobTheCoward said:
It was clearly written by people that intended interracial and same sex marriage to remain illegal.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
Constitutions by their nature are suicide pacts held to the standards of the ratifiers and applied to future generations. They are their strongest when the original ratifiers demonstrate clearly what a clause meant (the same way courts interpret disputed contracts by the actions of the parties involved).

You shouldn't adhere to the standards set so many years ago. But don't claim you are following the Constitution when you do it.
Click to expand...

Well it's a very good thing that the people who set up our constitution knew that their conventions and current intentions would not always be the correct ones, and produced a document that strives to ever push us towards alignment with their highest ideals, and not their current understanding.

You are the one not following the Constitution, nor what the Framers intended. They were not of the belief that all their understandings were the immutable truth. Their highest ideals said nothing about gay marriage, but the principles of their highest ideals lead inexorably to it, just as it lead to the end of slavery, the end to bans on interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and a whole host of changes that have made us stronger.

Obviously there is debate on any given individual measure, but to argue that because the Framers thought something it was what the Constitution actually says and means is completely fallacious.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says a dog can't play baseball.
 
The world is better off without him. Now we can replace him with a reasonable person.
 
tyr_13 said:
Well it's a very good thing that the people who set up our constitution knew that their conventions and current intentions would not always be the correct ones, and produced a document that strives to ever push us towards alignment with their highest ideals, and not their current understanding.

You are the one not following the Constitution, nor what the Framers intended. They were not of the belief that all their understandings were the immutable truth. Their highest ideals said nothing about gay marriage, but the principles of their highest ideals lead inexorably to it, just as it lead to the end of slavery, the end to bans on interracial marriage, women's suffrage, and a whole host of changes that have made us stronger.

Obviously there is debate on any given individual measure, but to argue that because the Framers thought something it was what the Constitution actually says and means is completely fallacious.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says a dog can't play baseball.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say EXCEPT when trying to claim unconstitutional laws that existed as Constitutional concepts since ratification.

Two of your examples required amendments (slavery and suffrage). That supports my argument that ideals don't mean squat when a contractual interpretation is readily apparent. You can't argue that slavery was unconstitutional before the amendment and you can't argue anti miscegenation is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:
logger said:
You think one issue defines this? I'm one who couldn't care less about homo's have civil unions, its a lot more than that!

Half the country is right thinking, 2/3 of the states are republican. We have the House and the Senate, the country is clearly divided down the middle. Not really clear to you but people aren't going to stand by and allow the wholesale changes this court could have the power to force on people.

Personally I think its time for this country to split into smaller countries. I would do whatever it took to not be governed by socialist thinking people.
Click to expand...

Given what happened to the last batch of people dedicated to "whatever it took", I hope you find HS on your doorstep very soon.

Have fun in Federal Prison for inciting violence, and say hello to the Bundy Bunch for us!
 
Condolences to his family, of course, but having followed US politics for years, I can't be sorry that he's dead; his absence from the supreme court is definitely a good thing for America.

As many have said, I find it likely that any Obama nominee will be blocked, and the issue will be passed on to the next president. All the more reason for democrats to win. You wouldn't want some fundamentalist tea party type to replace him in the supreme court.
 
logger said:
That was a nothing more than an attention whore.

The real revolution can be measured in gun and ammunition sales. ;)
Click to expand...

Adorable keyboard commando...

Fact is this stuff happens. Obama should appoint a justice who will overturn citizens united so we can get back to the business of being normal people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom