Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 72
Thanks Tree49Thanks

Thread: Majority of Americans Favor SC Ruling on What Constitution Says Today

  1. #61
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,631
    Thanks
    7653

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    It would frighten me to put anyone from the 18th century in charge of the 21st century, yes.
    But that is only because you have not yet opened yourself up to the always ancient and backwards oriented GOP.

    Once you allow yourself to see the world through the lense of the "good old days".. everything is possible... Handmaid's tale ? You betcha !

  2. #62
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,319
    Thanks
    4088

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by NeoVsMatrix View Post
    But that is only because you have not yet opened yourself up to the always ancient and backwards oriented GOP.

    Once you allow yourself to see the world through the lense of the "good old days".. everything is possible... Handmaid's tale ? You betcha !
    This thread is about the Supreme Court, not the GOP.

    Ever actually read a Supreme Court opinion, by chance?

  3. #63
    Member Robert Urbanek's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,448
    Thanks
    1477

    From
    Vacaville, CA
    Does any other country argue about its constitution as much as we do?

  4. #64
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    31,334
    Thanks
    19490

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    This thread is getting more and more nonsensical.

    When interpreting the Constitution, one must start with the text. Sometimes you can stop there, sometimes not. It has nothing to do with redefining anything, though naturally underlying principles must be divined in order to apply them to new situations. However, idea behind originalism is not the text, but what the authors and/or ratifiers thought was meant, and that makes no sense either, especially as this could result in contradicting the text. When something is vague, overbroad and/or unclear, investigation is necessary, and opinions about what was being drafted can become relevant to understanding the underlying principles in order to apply them; when analyzing statutes, this is called seeking legislative intent, which is instructive but not conclusive.
    Very nicely stated.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  5. #65
    the "good" prag pragmatic's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    31,334
    Thanks
    19490

    From
    between Moon and NYC
    These recent results are certainly a huge deviation from the past polling.

    Either weird or suspect.....

  6. #66
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,317
    Thanks
    32590

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    This thread is about the Supreme Court, not the GOP.
    The GOP is about to take total control of the Supreme Court. Thus, the GOP's political positions and litmus tests are supremely (!) relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    Ever actually read a Supreme Court opinion, by chance?
    I am not sure your question is related to his post. (FTR, I have read quite a few.)

  7. #67
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,319
    Thanks
    4088

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The GOP is about to take total control of the Supreme Court.

    Thus, the GOP's political positions and litmus tests are supremely (!) relevant.
    How is that? Do some Justices have to answer to party leadership or something?

    I am not sure your question is related to his post. (FTR, I have read quite a few.)
    I asked it of him because his post was so rhetoric-heavy. I would never ask you that question.
    Thanks from orangecat

  8. #68
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,755
    Thanks
    3051

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Of course not. But THEY didn't believe that their wisdom would be timely for all time. Actually, that's what the Constitution says should happen, since the Constitution doesn't mean anything if it isn't interpreted by justices. It's happening right now.
    You realize the madness of having laws changed by the party in power vs the law being determined by the Constitution? Its not happening now, nor should it ever be. It would be replacing the Legislature with Justices for making laws. Not a good idea. Instead of checks and balances, that would be removed and replaced by whoever is in power. Borderline dictatorship. Doesn't every politician swear to uphold the Constitution. How do they do that by wanting Judges and Justices to change the Constitution to fit our current period?
    Last edited by aboutenough; 12th July 2018 at 06:20 PM.

  9. #69
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,755
    Thanks
    3051

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    This does not make sense.

    Those that believe that Constitution is a living , breathing document do think this makes sense

  10. #70
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,408
    Thanks
    36951

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    You realize the madness of having laws changed by the party in power vs the law being determined by the Constitution?
    The Supreme Court doesn't "change laws." It determines if laws are in line with the Constitution or not. That's what they are doing.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 15th November 2017, 12:58 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 29th July 2017, 09:09 AM
  3. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2nd November 2016, 06:51 AM
  4. Numbers Favor Republicans Senate Majority
    By Divine Wind in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 17th February 2013, 03:19 PM
  5. 8-1 USSC Ruling in Favor of Kansas Anti-Gay Church
    By Singularity in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 5th March 2011, 05:39 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed