Justice Scalia: 'Constitution is not a living organism'

[NYcarbineer]

Btw - this idea is really a fundamental problem with our current politics. The whole idea of the Constitution is to provide a stable grant of sovereignty that isn't up for constant modification. If every single election is a referendum on the foundational nature of our government, if every election risks nominating judges who are allowed to make radical 'living' changes to the meaning of the Constitution, well - then we're doomed to vicious political struggles with every single election.

Which, is what we've been seeing, isn't it?

Your wishes are dust unless you can propose a viable way to disallow judges from doing what you describe in the bolded.

The first means available to us is to stop electing politicians who will nominate judges of this bent. Which means building consensus that changing the Constitution without real amendments is a bad idea.

Good luck convincing Americans that the Constitution doesn't assure women of equal rights.

 

[dblack]

There's no way to prevent that, at least without overturning the entire system.

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

I'm not sure what Scalia's agenda is. I'm hoping to persuade people that the living document agenda should be avoided.

 

[Redfish]

There's no way to prevent that, at least without overturning the entire system.

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

 

[Redfish]

Your wishes are dust unless you can propose a viable way to disallow judges from doing what you describe in the bolded.

The first means available to us is to stop electing politicians who will nominate judges of this bent. Which means building consensus that changing the Constitution without real amendments is a bad idea.

Good luck convincing Americans that the Constitution doesn't assure women of equal rights.

who said that the constitution does not guarantee equal rights for women?

 

[dblack]

Your wishes are dust unless you can propose a viable way to disallow judges from doing what you describe in the bolded.

The first means available to us is to stop electing politicians who will nominate judges of this bent. Which means building consensus that changing the Constitution without real amendments is a bad idea.

Good luck convincing Americans that the Constitution doesn't assure women of equal rights.

I won't need it, as I don't believe that.

 

[paperview]

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

 

[paperview]

The first means available to us is to stop electing politicians who will nominate judges of this bent. Which means building consensus that changing the Constitution without real amendments is a bad idea.

Good luck convincing Americans that the Constitution doesn't assure women of equal rights.

who said that the constitution does not guarantee equal rights for women?

Scalia.

 

[Redfish]

Good luck convincing Americans that the Constitution doesn't assure women of equal rights.

who said that the constitution does not guarantee equal rights for women?

Scalia.

no he did not. you are spinning as usual. post his entire quote and prove that he believes that.

 

[Redfish]

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

OK, lets play, first you define "endowed by their creator".

 

[paperview]

who said that the constitution does not guarantee equal rights for women?

Scalia.

no he did not. you are spinning as usual. post his entire quote and prove that he believes that.

Posted earlier in the thread. Go look for it.

 

[paperview]

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

OK, lets play, first you define "endowed by their creator".

No. I asked you first.

If you refuse to answer, that will provide answers all in itself.

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Democrats were in the White House 8 of 9 years before the invasion started, and Democrats were all over the Senate intelligence committee. We are in agreement that we are against the invasion. Where we differ is that you look at two parties who did and said the same thing and believe one is pure as the driven snow and the other are devils. When they did and said exactly the same thing.

And there is something wrong with everyone who disagrees with you, that is what I pointed out in the first place. Only you see truth. Me for example, seeing two identical parties who do the same thing as the same. That's just messed up, isn't it?

Wrong again. Look at the votes in the H. or Rep. and the Senate by party authorizing Bush to use force against Saddam.

Wrong again. None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They just didn't want to invade anyway. I am in favor of that position, but it's not what you've been arguing. You don't get to move the goal posts. If you want to argue we shouldn't have invaded without the lie that Democrats were lied to, then I'll be with you. I am not going to sit and let you spew the crap though that it was the Republicans when it was both of you.

"None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs", really??? I didn't know, post the quotes from each of the 126 H. or Rep. Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution and the 21 Senate Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution said words which you attribute to them in your post.

Clearly some of the D's didn't go along with what you attribute to them, as the evidence will show. See:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the amendments offered by Democrats.

 

[Redfish]

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

OK, lets play, first you define "endowed by their creator".

No. I asked you first.

If you refuse to answer, that will provide answers all in itself.

Define "cruel and unusual punishment."

Without interpreting it.

Unusual = out of the ordinary, uncommon, strange.

cruel = inhuman, merciless

Obviously these definitions are based on the morals and cultures of the time. But in every time and culture the people understood what they mean.

putting a convicted criminal in a woodchipper would be considered cruel and unusual. We know what these words mean.


now, tell me what "endowed by their creator" means

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

There's no way to prevent that, at least without overturning the entire system.

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Which is exactly what this is about.

Conservative opposition to judicial review has nothing to do with the facts or merits of the doctrine – as the right has clearly lost in that regard, given the fact it was the original intent of the Framers that laws offensive to the Constitution be invalidated by the courts, and the meaning of the Constitution interpreted by the courts as authorized by judicial review.

Rather, conservative opposition to judicial review is purely partisan, where the courts have wisely and correctly struck down laws that comport with conservative dogma, laws that sought solely to deny classes of persons their civil liberties.

Of course, conservative opposition to judicial review has been constant over the years, dating back to the days of Brown; but the opposition has intensified recently in the wake of court decisions striking down laws designed to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as well as laws seeking to violate the privacy rights of women with regard to abortion, and the Supreme Court’s invalidating an offensive provision of DOMA.

That conservatives oppose the courts invalidating laws rightists support because those laws comport with subjective conservative dogma is not justification to attack the doctrine of judicial review, or seek to have the doctrine altered or eliminated.

 

[Redfish]

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Which is exactly what this is about.

Conservative opposition to judicial review has nothing to do with the facts or merits of the doctrine – as the right has clearly lost in that regard, given the fact it was the original intent of the Framers that laws offensive to the Constitution be invalidated by the courts, and the meaning of the Constitution interpreted by the courts as authorized by judicial review.

Rather, conservative opposition to judicial review is purely partisan, where the courts have wisely and correctly struck down laws that comport with conservative dogma, laws that sought solely to deny classes of persons their civil liberties.

Of course, conservative opposition to judicial review has been constant over the years, dating back to the days of Brown; but the opposition has intensified recently in the wake of court decisions striking down laws designed to deny same-sex couples their equal protection rights, as well as laws seeking to violate the privacy rights of women with regard to abortion, and the Supreme Court’s invalidating an offensive provision of DOMA.

That conservatives oppose the courts invalidating laws rightists support because those laws comport with subjective conservative dogma is not justification to attack the doctrine of judicial review, or seek to have the doctrine altered or eliminated.

total

 

[kaz]

Wrong again. Look at the votes in the H. or Rep. and the Senate by party authorizing Bush to use force against Saddam.

Wrong again. None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They just didn't want to invade anyway. I am in favor of that position, but it's not what you've been arguing. You don't get to move the goal posts. If you want to argue we shouldn't have invaded without the lie that Democrats were lied to, then I'll be with you. I am not going to sit and let you spew the crap though that it was the Republicans when it was both of you.

"None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs", really??? I didn't know, post the quotes from each of the 126 H. or Rep. Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution and the 21 Senate Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution said words which you attribute to them in your post.

Clearly some of the D's didn't go along with what you attribute to them, as the evidence will show. See:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the amendments offered by Democrats.

So now the goal posts move again. First it was Gore. I shot down that as the crap that it was, he supported the invasion. Then it was the Democrats. Oops, they argued the same thing as the Republicans whether they supported invasion or not. Your second goal post position is shot down. So now, it's if ANY Democrat said there weren't WMDs. And you can't actually show that either, so you show me Wiki and refer to amendments that didn't say that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

So, where to the goal posts move to now?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, rejecting "living document" doctrine is a start.

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

Scalia is incorrect, and so are you.

And as a partisan rightist it comes as no surprise you agree with him.

As with Scalia, you predicate your belief of a ‘literal constitution’ not on facts or evidence as to the original intent of the Framers, but on your perception that a ‘literal constitution’ would be more kind to subjective conservative dogma, where a ‘bare bones’ constitution would allow you to ban abortion, or deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong again. None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs. They just didn't want to invade anyway. I am in favor of that position, but it's not what you've been arguing. You don't get to move the goal posts. If you want to argue we shouldn't have invaded without the lie that Democrats were lied to, then I'll be with you. I am not going to sit and let you spew the crap though that it was the Republicans when it was both of you.

"None of the Democrats who voted against the invasion were saying that Saddam didn't have WMDs", really??? I didn't know, post the quotes from each of the 126 H. or Rep. Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution and the 21 Senate Democrats who voted against the Iraq Resolution said words which you attribute to them in your post.

Clearly some of the D's didn't go along with what you attribute to them, as the evidence will show. See:

Iraq Resolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the amendments offered by Democrats.

So now the goal posts move again. First it was Gore. I shot down that as the crap that it was, he supported the invasion. Then it was the Democrats. Oops, they argued the same thing as the Republicans whether they supported invasion or not. Your second goal post position is shot down. So now, it's if ANY Democrat said there weren't WMDs. And you can't actually show that either, so you show me Wiki and refer to amendments that didn't say that Saddam didn't have WMDs.

So, where to the goal posts move to now?

I think the libs have the goal posts up their asses by now. They always lose this one but the idiots keep trying it over an over. liberalism is a mental disease, they display that every day.

 

[Redfish]

You're going to force everyone to believe the radical rightwing agenda of a Justice Scalia?

lol, good luck with that.

Scalia is correct. The constitution is to be taken as it is written, not interpreted by factions from either side. It says what is says, it is clear. The ambiguity is only in the minds of those who do not like what the document says.

Scalia is incorrect, and so are you.

And as a partisan rightist it comes as no surprise you agree with him.

As with Scalia, you predicate your belief of a ‘literal constitution’ not on facts or evidence as to the original intent of the Framers, but on your perception that a ‘literal constitution’ would be more kind to subjective conservative dogma, where a ‘bare bones’ constitution would allow you to ban abortion, or deny same-sex couples their civil liberties.

whether abortion is legal or illegal should be up to the voters of each state, it is not a constitutional argument.

Marriage is not a constitutionally given right. same sex couples DO HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS, just as single gays have equal rights and married male/female couples have equal rights.

there is no such thing as a constitutional right to marriage.

 

[regent]

What is funny, is that those on these boards the posters that do not want interpretation of the Constitution, immediatley begin interpreting the Constituion to prove their point.