'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

[2aguy]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

And if jonah had gotten his way, hilary would have picked Scalia's replacement and now kennedy's replacement, and the rulings we have had in the last week would have gone the other way... all because he doesn't like the way Trump tweets..... jonah used to be an intelligent writer.... now he is sitting in a chair talking about the crew stealing his strawberries...

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Shouldn't the American Constitution be STRICTLY adhered to as it was WRITTEN ie. as America's Founding Fathers INTENDED it to be adhered to?

As a side point I have read the list of The Donald's 25 possible choices to replace that Anthony Kennedy, IMHO I like Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I commented about her the other night, I will in this thread give my reasons why I think she would be the best choice.

I think the best choice is a man or a woman aged about 46 years in age, who is a Practising Christian and is like that Antonin Scalia, Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett fills all criteria, born in 1972 aged 46 years in age, she is a Practising Roman Catholic her and her husband have SEVEN kidlets, she worked for a year for Antonin Scalia and on May 8 2017 The Donald nominated her to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for The Seventh Circuit and her nomination was approved by The Senate 55-43.

The situation is it would be difficult for Democrats and also a few RINO Republicans to not confirm someone like Amy Coney Barrett for The Supreme Court when they already voted to approve her for that other court, also they would not be able to do their usual Smear Campaign which they are going to want to do because how would they justify doing that when they already approved her for the other Court already?

Also the Far Left HATE Amy Coney Barrett I was reading about when The Donald nominated her for that other Court and they were almost having Grand Mal Seizures.

Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia

Sorry but I disagree I have several problems with your pick. But everyone has good pedigree that is on the list.

What would you say is wrong in your opinion with Amy Coney Barrett?

Nothing at all.

1st choice....don't know.

Would need to look at her more closely.

Nominating a solid judge is what is important. We need someone who will help get things back on track.

People talk about the pining for the "good old days". The fact is that we never had them. Roe is almost 45 years old and the FRD court was botching things up before that.

We need judges who will help this nation realize the potential of the constitution as it would work in our day.

When it was written, America had 6,000,000 people.

Now we have a bunch of states and even some CITIES that are bigger than that.

The emphasis should be on more local rule (could Chicago pass a pro-abortion bill....don't see why not....they have all kinds of post birth abortion activities already).

We just need a solid conservative judge.

Appreciate your suggestion.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Like the originalist Scalia who ignored the original militia context.

What is "originalist" should be an ongoing discussion in the public arena.

We don't even teach civics anymore.

 

[JBond]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Shouldn't the American Constitution be STRICTLY adhered to as it was WRITTEN ie. as America's Founding Fathers INTENDED it to be adhered to?

As a side point I have read the list of The Donald's 25 possible choices to replace that Anthony Kennedy, IMHO I like Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I commented about her the other night, I will in this thread give my reasons why I think she would be the best choice.

I think the best choice is a man or a woman aged about 46 years in age, who is a Practising Christian and is like that Antonin Scalia, Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett fills all criteria, born in 1972 aged 46 years in age, she is a Practising Roman Catholic her and her husband have SEVEN kidlets, she worked for a year for Antonin Scalia and on May 8 2017 The Donald nominated her to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for The Seventh Circuit and her nomination was approved by The Senate 55-43.

The situation is it would be difficult for Democrats and also a few RINO Republicans to not confirm someone like Amy Coney Barrett for The Supreme Court when they already voted to approve her for that other court, also they would not be able to do their usual Smear Campaign which they are going to want to do because how would they justify doing that when they already approved her for the other Court already?

Also the Far Left HATE Amy Coney Barrett I was reading about when The Donald nominated her for that other Court and they were almost having Grand Mal Seizures.

Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia

Sorry but I disagree I have several problems with your pick. But everyone has good pedigree that is on the list.

What would you say is wrong in your opinion with Amy Coney Barrett?

I would also like to know. An honest discussion among like minded people can be revealing. I don't know a ton about any of the potential nominees. I do like Lucy's reasoning, to a point. I believe we can ram through anyone we feel like, but we need to be careful who we pick. There may be better candidates.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Shouldn't the American Constitution be STRICTLY adhered to as it was WRITTEN ie. as America's Founding Fathers INTENDED it to be adhered to?

As a side point I have read the list of The Donald's 25 possible choices to replace that Anthony Kennedy, IMHO I like Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett, I commented about her the other night, I will in this thread give my reasons why I think she would be the best choice.

I think the best choice is a man or a woman aged about 46 years in age, who is a Practising Christian and is like that Antonin Scalia, Federal Judge Amy Coney Barrett fills all criteria, born in 1972 aged 46 years in age, she is a Practising Roman Catholic her and her husband have SEVEN kidlets, she worked for a year for Antonin Scalia and on May 8 2017 The Donald nominated her to serve as a United States Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for The Seventh Circuit and her nomination was approved by The Senate 55-43.

The situation is it would be difficult for Democrats and also a few RINO Republicans to not confirm someone like Amy Coney Barrett for The Supreme Court when they already voted to approve her for that other court, also they would not be able to do their usual Smear Campaign which they are going to want to do because how would they justify doing that when they already approved her for the other Court already?

Also the Far Left HATE Amy Coney Barrett I was reading about when The Donald nominated her for that other Court and they were almost having Grand Mal Seizures.

Amy Coney Barrett - Wikipedia

Sorry but I disagree I have several problems with your pick. But everyone has good pedigree that is on the list.

What would you say is wrong in your opinion with Amy Coney Barrett?

I would also like to know. An honest discussion among like minded people can be revealing. I don't know a ton about any of the potential nominees. I do like Lucy's reasoning, to a point. I believe we can ram through anyone we feel like, but we need to be careful who we pick. There may be better candidates.

A good place to start, but I would say that we also need a good discussion about the purpose of the court. Once you have that in hand, it is easier to pick a judge.

I don't want an activist conservative judge any more than I want to RBG to live another week.

 

[karpenter]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

FDR Kept Getting His Programs Overturned At The High Court Level
So He Had To Change It From Five Justices To Nine
So He Could Stack The Deck

 

[Dschrute3]

Trump needs one more appointment after this one. 6-3 would spell the end for Anti-American Globalists for awhile. 7-2 would amount to a Coup d'etat, but i'll take 6-3.

 

[bendog]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.

 

[Moonglow]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

FDR Kept Getting His Programs Overturned At The High Court Level
So He Had To Change It From Five Justices To Nine
So He Could Stack The Deck

And just when he failed at that the Supreme Court ok'd his reform legislation..

 

[Dschrute3]

Globalist assholes like Hillary Clinton have been pushing the 'Living Document'-Constitution scam for years. It's code for, 'Let's get rid of the US Constitution.' It's interfering with their New World Order. So God willing, Trump will get to appoint a couple more Justices. If it happens, the NWO Globalists will be thwarted for years. Go Trump!

 

[Cecilie1200]

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Like the originalist Scalia who ignored the original militia context.

I just heard, "He was wrong because he didn't agree with me!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.

And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.

 

[blastoff]

Trump needs one more appointment after this one. 6-3 would spell the end for Anti-American Globalists for awhile. 7-2 would amount to a Coup d'etat, but i'll take 6-3.

Let’s see. 85-y-o Ruth would have to make it to about 92 to survive through Trump’s second term. Dollars to donuts that ain’t gonna happen.

 

[bendog]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.

And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.

Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."

You aren't required to be a dumbass to be a Trumpchump, but it appears to help.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.

And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.

Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."

You aren't required to be a dumbass to be a Trumpchump, but it appears to help.

In other words, you can't actually explain the "real" meaning of the phrase. All you can do is throw out "THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong" without any explanation of HOW.

Naught but what I expected. Thank you for confirming my low opinion of you.

 

[bendog]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.

And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.

Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."

You aren't required to be a dumbass to be a Trumpchump, but it appears to help.

In other words, you can't actually explain the "real" meaning of the phrase. All you can do is throw out "THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong" without any explanation of HOW.

Naught but what I expected. Thank you for confirming my low opinion of you.

No, I'm just not explaining jack shit to you. There's actually a wiki article, but I question whether you could follow it beyond your ideological vapidity.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is English a dead language?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Jonah Goldberg - 'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

The second track is longer. Starting over a century ago, progressives began emphasizing ends over means. If the Supreme Court could deliver wins unattainable at the ballot box and unsupported by the Constitution, so be it. Thus was born the "living Constitution" -- the doctrine which holds that the magical parchment should mean whatever progressives need it to mean at any moment.

******************

This guy nailed it.

And the selection of an originalist will help get things to where they need to be.

Loving got it right. (sarcasm) it would possibly help if you looked to what actual legal scholars think, and for the writer to understand what was referred to as the "living constitution." Not that I was in favor of that anymore than I am in preventing marriages between different race people. Or gay people for that matter.

And this grand "understanding" of the phrase "living Constitution" that only you can see would be what? I note with interest that you dismiss Goldberg as incorrect, without ever bothering to explain HOW he is incorrect. It's almost like you want to reject his article just because you don't like it, or something.

Neither Loving, nor Windsor or even Obergefell had anything to do with what judicial scholars refer to as " a living constitution."

You aren't required to be a dumbass to be a Trumpchump, but it appears to help.

In other words, you can't actually explain the "real" meaning of the phrase. All you can do is throw out "THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong, and THIS is wrong" without any explanation of HOW.

Naught but what I expected. Thank you for confirming my low opinion of you.

No, I'm just not explaining jack shit to you. There's actually a wiki article, but I question whether you could follow it beyond your ideological vapidity.

You know what "not explaining jack shit" accomplishes? It proves that you can't. So don't explain; I have no problem with you demonstrating that I'm correct.

 

[Hum Dinger]

What Conservatives call a 'Constitutional Originalist' is just a judge that interperts the Constitution the way they'd like it to be interperted.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Is English a dead language?

Probably, but I speak American, so I don't care.