Merged Scalia is dead

tsig said:
No, it is not that, it is a framework for government.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would agree that law itself fundamentally exists to protect citizens from the state. States precede the rule of law by thousands of years. Even the criminal code has a fundamental purpose in protecting criminals from mob justice.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Actually, I would agree that law itself fundamentally exists to protect citizens from the state. States precede the rule of law by thousands of years. Even the criminal code has a fundamental purpose in protecting criminals from mob justice.
Click to expand...

The constitution protects the country from both fascism and anarchy, but it does so by creating a government. It gives it powers, and limits it from others. The constitution doesn't exist for the sole purpose of protecting the people, that is a secondary effect caused by creating this specific form of government.
 
Giordano said:
If the founders were strongly against interracial marriage (as they may have been- although remember that at least a few had children with their Black slaves) and wished to include that as a government-imposed policy it is "unfortunate" that they failed to explicitly include that in the Constitution. You are arguing that because some, maybe even many, people now guess that this must have been the founders' thinking at the time they drafted the Constitution that this guess should now be the basis of the current law. However, there are a lot of guesses/opinions on these types of issues. Gee, there should be some way of having a formal group of appointed legal scholars who are considered experts in the correct interpretation of the Constitution and who are expected to judge these issues as they arise. Oh wait, we have that: the judges on the Supreme Court. But you argue that they are wrong in their published interpretation of the Constitution. Why? Because you see it differently.
Click to expand...

There actually were several attempts to make constitutional amendments banning mixed race marriages around the turn of the Twentieth Century.
 
Desert Fox said:
There actually were several attempts to make constitutional amendments banning mixed race marriages around the turn of the Twentieth Century.
Click to expand...
The Republicans tried to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage during Dubya's Presidency though they didn't have enough votes to get it out of Congress.
 
Giordano said:
If the founders were strongly against interracial marriage (as they may have been- although remember that at least a few had children with their Black slaves) and wished to include that as a government-imposed policy it is "unfortunate" that they failed to explicitly include that in the Constitution. You are arguing that because some, maybe even many, people now guess that this must have been the founders' thinking at the time they drafted the Constitution that this guess should now be the basis of the current law. However, there are a lot of guesses/opinions on these types of issues. Gee, there should be some way of having a formal group of appointed legal scholars who are considered experts in the correct interpretation of the Constitution and who are expected to judge these issues as they arise. Oh wait, we have that: the judges on the Supreme Court. But you argue that they are wrong in their published interpretation of the Constitution. Why? Because you see it differently.
Click to expand...

But is there ambiguity leading to guesses on this issue though? It actually serves as a liberal attack on originalist. I can cite law papers that make the originalist case for affrming loving. Do you think if I made a thread on that liberal legal thinkers here would agree with the conclusions?
 
ehcks said:
The constitution protects the country from both fascism and anarchy, but it does so by creating a government. It gives it powers, and limits it from others. The constitution doesn't exist for the sole purpose of protecting the people, that is a secondary effect caused by creating this specific form of government.
Click to expand...

It's an arguable and partially semantic point. I would say that creating a specific form of government is the method for protecting the people employed by the U.S. Constitution.
 
So Backstairs Tony croaked. Jeeze, boss, wotta we gonna do now?

For a long time, I thought it was pronounced SCALia, and I rejoiced (sort of) that the USA had a top judge called Tony Onions. Too bad to be true, I guess.
 
It is "standard practice" to not confirm nominations to the Supreme Court in an election year, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Saturday, following news of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.*

As a result, he said the Senate shouldn't confirm President Obama's nominee to replace Scalia.*
Click to expand...

http://thehill.com/regulation/court...r-wait-until-election-is-over-to-fill-scalias

What a lying piece of ****. As I said before, Kennedy was confirmed during an election year, 97-0. And Grassley, like McConnell was in the Senate at the time.

I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to be more dishonest and hypocritical than Republicans are.
 
Last edited:
Desert Fox said:
There actually were several attempts to make constitutional amendments banning mixed race marriages around the turn of the Twentieth Century.
Click to expand...

Tony Stark said:
The Republicans tried to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage during Dubya's Presidency though they didn't have enough votes to get it out of Congress.
Click to expand...

They seem to also know that people's opinions were changing - why they pushed amendments in states through as quickly as they did. Honestly though, if they had not pushed Prop 8 so hard, I don't think Obergefell v. Hodges would have occurred as quickly as it did.
 
Rare Truth said:
Wow. Seriously?
Click to expand...

Bobthecoward, as far as I can read, is an ultra "constitutionalist" in other word if there was no amendment on slavery, he would be perfectly fine with having slavery authorized without a specific (13th?) amendment, because the document allow it and that is the only important thing : the document. And if somebody want to change that then somebody need to change the constitution with amendment sand this is the only way authorized.
 
Elind said:
How does the constitution deny gay marriage then?
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear that you understand what the Supreme Court decided. This might help:

In the United States of America, same-sex marriage has been legal nationwide since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.[1][2][3] The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a precedent, Baker v. Nelson.
Click to expand...
 
Tony Stark said:
http://thehill.com/regulation/court...r-wait-until-election-is-over-to-fill-scalias

What a lying piece of ****. As I said before, Kennedy was confirmed during an election year, 97-0. And Grassley, like McConnell was in the Senate at the time.

I am not sure if it is possible for anyone to be more dishonest and hypocritical than Republicans are.
Click to expand...

Wait a minute. Do you know the history behind the Anthony Kennedy nomination? It does not quite make the point that you want to make.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Wait a minute. Do you know the history behind the Anthony Kennedy nomination? It does not quite make the point that you want to make.
Click to expand...
I know he was nominated after Reagan tried to put some piece of crap on the bench and the Senate (including some Republicans) rejected him.

He was still confirmed during an election year thus proving Grassley a liar.

And do you think that there is any chance whatsoever that the Republicans would be saying that we should wait until after the election if Mitt Romney was President? Of course they wouldn't. They are worthless lying hypocrites and it couldn't be more obvious.
 
This fellow Srinivasan seems eminently qualified and was fairly recently (2013) confirmed to the DC Circuit, generally considered to be the second-highest court in the land (four of the sitting justices were pulled from there). Srinivasan was confirmed by 97-0, I might add, plus he would be the first Asian-American and the first Indian-American on the Supreme Court were he to be confirmed.

It's hard for me to see how the Republicans could say he's qualified to be on the DC Circuit, but not the SC. Oh, wait, he has liberal leanings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom