Judge Scalia RIP

[OakRiver]

Supreme Court fight ahead as Obama 'plays it straight' - BBC News

"It is tempting to make this confirmation process simply an extension of our divided politics, the squabbling that's going on in the news every day," Mr Obama said.
"But to go down that path would be wrong. It would be a betrayal of our best traditions and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents."

Said the man undermining the Second Amendment and calling his opponents terrorists...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Does anybody have an idea why the Republicans won't simply vote on this? Are they afraid of members of their own party jumping ship?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Supreme Court fight ahead as Obama 'plays it straight' - BBC News

"It is tempting to make this confirmation process simply an extension of our divided politics, the squabbling that's going on in the news every day," Mr Obama said.
"But to go down that path would be wrong. It would be a betrayal of our best traditions and a betrayal of the vision of our founding documents."

Said the man undermining the Second Amendment and calling his opponents terrorists...

Would it be fair to ask what, specifically, are you talking about?

 

[Birds Away]

Would it be fair to ask what, specifically, are you talking about?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Cute graphic aside, do you have any something specific you'd like to add?

 

[jamil]

Yes, balance for the sake balance.....If one assumes both positions have merit. And we both know that, by default, all liberal positions are wrong, on INGO.

No, not balance for balance sake. I don't want either liberal nor conservative bias determining the constitutionality of law. Liberal bias would gut the 2nd amendment. Conservative bias gave us Citizen's United.

The constitution says what it says. And sometimes there are grey areas discovered, and sometimes cunning lawyers find loopholes to exploit. Deciding those based on the majority whim makes a mockery of the system.

Are we governed by laws or robes? I don't want law decided by whims. Laws are written and approved by a process. If we are ruled by laws then it should take a process to change them, and not the whims of people who want to make a better outcome for their side than the other. The Wise Latina's words should have disqualified her. So we essentially have this board of 9 who are an extension of ideologies.

Balance is the wrong word for what the court needs. It needs intellectually honest people who are willing to let the document and its consistency say what it says. The Heller majority decision was a more intellectually honest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The dissenting opinion said

The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.... I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.

That's an ideological judgement. Literature from the period is rich with a belief that citizens should be armed. He finds that astonishing because he believes, personally, that citizens shouldn't be armed and that the state should have the authority to disarm citizens.

Clinton has to win first. I know several of you quitters want to just hand her the crown, but she's no lock to win it. You need to stop watching so much MSNBC and their BS polls. Don't be brainwashed by the media telling you that the latest poll shows her as the winner. Until the final vote is tallied in November the competition is still open.

Dude, we have a choice between Trump and Hillary. Liberty has already lost. Assuming Trump wins the nomination, I'll go through the motions, but it's futile.

The United States Constitution, or the constitutions of the individual states? It was left to the states at the time, and the states didn't grant women the right to vote. So, if the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (incl. the 10th Amendment) as the Founders did at the time, and the individual State Supreme Courts do the same, then that's the end of women's suffrage.

Again, he specifically said "the day the ink dried." Not later. If it wasn't done by the Founders, then it's not expressly within their intent.

Wow. I know we don't always agree on stuff, but I've seen you up until this point as intellectually honest. But you've convinced me that you're actually serious. At first I thought you were just being sarcastic. Apparently not. So yeah. You now officially hold the record for the most intellectually dishonest post in INGO history. Congratulations. You beat the Trumpers.

The day the ink dried, the document they created prescribed the means by which the document may be amended.

You know that.

The 19th Amendment was added by that process to allow women to vote.

You know that.

No "original intent" justice since the 19th amendment passed has insisted the 19th Amendment is invalid.

You know that too.

But you insist on saying "original intent" is saying, something it doesn't say. And you know better. You just don't like it because then the constitution would need to be changed by the process prescribed to allow the laws you want. Instead, you'd rather have an ideological majority reach a conclusion that's better for you. That's bias. Rule of law should be unbiased.

You're being intellectually dishonest about it. Because I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know better.

 

[jamil]

Would it be fair to ask what, specifically, are you talking about?

He has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. He has called Republicans terrorists. I'm not sure what's so hard to pinpoint here.

 

[Birds Away]

He has tried very hard to undermine the 2A. He has called Republicans terrorists. I'm not sure what's so hard to pinpoint here.

You're just beating your head against a brick wall. Nothing you could possibly say would shake his devotion.

 

[jamil]

You're just beating your head against a brick wall. Nothing you could possibly say would shake his devotion.

I'm not beating my head against the wall. I'm not trying to shake his devotion. I can point out the obvious all day. It's like sport.

 

[Birds Away]

I'm not beating my head against the wall. I'm not trying to shake his devotion. I can point out the obvious all day. It's like sport.

You referenced intellectual dishonesty earlier. You have entered the heart of the envelope.

 

[Leadeye]

I suspect that obie's nominee choice has more to do with his record on environmental law than his opinion on 2A. Getting the court turned around on the issue of carbon regulation is going to make the people connected with boutique electricity extremely rich and Americans are going to pay for it.

Always follow the money

 

[chipbennett]

You are free to agree or disagree, but so far they have been spot on in their evaluations of Obama's previous Supreme Court appointments- Kagan and Sotomayor.

To be fair, it's difficult to be wrong when no ambiguity exists.

 

[Lowe0]

Wow. I know we don't always agree on stuff, but I've seen you up until this point as intellectually honest. But you've convinced me that you're actually serious. At first I thought you were just being sarcastic. Apparently not. So yeah. You now officially hold the record for the most intellectually dishonest post in INGO history. Congratulations. You beat the Trumpers.

The day the ink dried, the document they created prescribed the means by which the document may be amended.

You know that.

The 19th Amendment was changed by that process to allow women to vote.

You know that.

No "original intent" justice since the 19th amendment passed has insisted the 19th Amendment is invalid.

You know that too.

But you insist on saying "original intent" is saying, something it doesn't say. And you know better. You just don't like it because then the constitution would need to be changed by the process prescribed to allow the laws you want. Instead, you'd rather have an ideological majority reach a conclusion that's better for you. That's bias. Rule of law should be unbiased.

You're being intellectually dishonest about it. Because I'm pretty sure you're smart enough to know better.

The Constitution already was amended to allow the kind of laws I'd like (14th, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). However, applying the law equally isn't very popular among today's conservatives, in favor of a nostalgic view of the past that ignores that things weren't perfect back then, either. If you think that challenging that rose-tinted view of a bygone era is intellectually dishonest, then somehow I'll find the strength to live with that and keep going, one day at a time.

 

[chipbennett]

Again, he specifically said "the day the ink dried." Not later. If it wasn't done by the Founders, then it's not expressly within their intent.

Were the amendments written using something other than ink?

 

[Jludo]

Does anybody have an idea why the Republicans won't simply vote on this? Are they afraid of members of their own party jumping ship?

I agree, cnn was playing clips of hypocritical dems making arguments in the past about why we shouldn't accept Bushes nominee in an election year. The dems claim the difference was that they still gave them a vote, even if the reason they voted nay was the same.

 

[chipbennett]

The Constitution already was amended to allow the kind of laws I'd like (14th, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). However, applying the law equally isn't very popular among today's conservatives, in favor of a nostalgic view of the past that ignores that things weren't perfect back then, either. If you think that challenging that rose-tinted view of a bygone era is intellectually dishonest, then somehow I'll find the strength to live with that and keep going, one day at a time.

Oddly enough, it is the conservatives who want the law to treat everyone equally, and the progressives who keep insisting on creating special classes of people who get treated differently under the law.

 

[Birds Away]

I'm shocked CNN showed that.

 

[jamil]

The Constitution already was amended to allow the kind of laws I'd like (14th, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). However, applying the law equally isn't very popular among today's conservatives, in favor of a nostalgic view of the past that ignores that things weren't perfect back then, either. If you think that challenging that rose-tinted view of a bygone era is intellectually dishonest, then somehow I'll find the strength to live with that and keep going, one day at a time.

And you're being intellectually dishonest again. You're saying something I'm not saying. What I said was intellectually dishonest was you claiming that original intent means things that you know it doesn't mean. For example that women shouldn't have the right to vote. You know damn well that original intent includes amendments. And you're continuing with intellectual dishonesty by insisting that I'm saying something I'm not saying.

I don't want to be ruled by your whims. If your ideological viewpoint judges that the constitution prohibits the government from doing something it should be able to do, then work to amend the constitution to your liking. And if you don't have the political capital to get that done, it's probably because enough people disagree with you to prevent it. So in that case you'll have to find the strength to live with that and keep going, one day at a time. At least that's how it works when administrations don't stack the deck with ideologues willing to whore their power for ideological purity.

 

[Lowe0]

Were the amendments written using something other than ink?

If the Constitution must continue to mean what it meant the day its ink dried, then how does one resolve the conflict when an Amendment changes what the Constitution means?

Rather than simply asking rhetorically, I'll propose an answer: that's what we have Congress and the courts for.

 

[KLB]

The Constitution already was amended to allow the kind of laws I'd like (14th, "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."). However, applying the law equally isn't very popular among today's conservatives, in favor of a nostalgic view of the past that ignores that things weren't perfect back then, either. If you think that challenging that rose-tinted view of a bygone era is intellectually dishonest, then somehow I'll find the strength to live with that and keep going, one day at a time.

You seem to prefer to use the law to force people to think like you do. The social issues so important to you have nothing to do with the law protecting some people less than others, it is about granting some people more protection than others.