Senate Panel Endorses Sotomayor in 13-6 Vote

[Oddball]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Reading the constiution is no big deal.

Understanding what it means in realtionship to our world certain is a big deal.

Especially given how the floundering fathers seemed to go out of their way, in some cases, to be purposefully vague, and in others they truly did write the thing as to NOT tie the hands of future generations.

And why the principal author of that document, James Madison, went into explicit detail on those vagaries in The Federalist #41

 

[Xenophon]

Look like the vote was carried out in a wise latina way.

 

[Chris]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

Nice.

She is well qualified and deserving of the post.

Which is more than I can say for Clarence Thomas.

 

[DiveCon]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

Nice.

She is well qualified and deserving of the post.

Which is more than I can say for Clarence Thomas.

racist

 

[Darkwind]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Reading the constiution is no big deal.

Understanding what it means in realtionship to our world certain is a big deal.

Especially given how the floundering fathers seemed to go out of their way, in some cases, to be purposefully vague, and in others they truly did write the thing as to NOT tie the hands of future generations.

What they apparently understood, that most of our board's legal scholars apparently do not, is that the world belongs to the living, and therefore one cannot write the laws that will be germane to every occassion and time.

The brilliance of that document is the flexibility its authors wrote into it.

If you'd told any of them that you were a strict interpretor of the constitution, I suspect they would think you'd missed the whole point of how carefully they crafted it to give future generations the opportunity to interpret it to suit the needs of the times.

The brilliance of the FOUNDING Fathers was that they did write the Constitution for the living and gave us a way to alter that Document to keep up with the current times. It is called an Amendment.

The additional brilliance of the Founding Fathers is that the recognized that government is inherently corrupt and will in fact, fall prey to fads and the wiles of people who wish to benefit at the expense of others. That is why they wrote strict and binding leashes on the government to keep the corruption in check.

A strict interpretation of that document adheres to these principles, keeping the people safe from an ever growing and corrupt government.

You want to have the Constitution reflect our times? Amend it as was meant.

 

[Soaring]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Reading the constitution and interpreting it are two different animals. I doubt seriously that she can interpret the constitution without interjecting her own personal prejudices and "feelings" into her ultimate decision.

 

[DiveCon]

I find it fascinating that this board is rife with so many experts on constitutional law.

Even more fascinating is that despite the fact that you guys are all legal experts you all have so much time to give us the benefit of your wisdom in this field.

how hard is it to actually READ the constitution?

Reading the constitution and interpreting it are two different animals. I doubt seriously that she can interpret the constitution without interjecting her own personal prejudices and "feelings" into her ultimate decision.

on that i agree
but i dont believe that the constitution is written in a mannor that the common educated person couldnt understand
and i mean anyone with a high school diploma