'Living Constitution' Faces a Mercy Killing

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

So called "originalists" stood around with their thumb up their ass while Mitch, Ted, Marco and Co. put the Constitution on Hold for a year in 2016. And the Dems didn't do much to stop them as they thought Hillary was a shoe-in.

In the end, we found out that Ted Cruz really sees the Constitution as something that can be turned off when necessary -- like if a sitting black President is going to replace Justice Scalia. Don't you love how he played the GOP base as ignorant sheep telling them all how he found this magical 'precedent'...and they ate it up.


The constitution has been degraded into an often meaningless document that Government only follows when politically convenient.

The right will convince their rube low-educated voters, the Dems are going to take away their guns, meanwhile any overreach on Gun rights by Feds or states has been overturned by SCOTUS. "Gun Grab" fear tactics are about selling guns.

I find that most so-called "Constitutionists" don't really believe in the constitution as they don't really believe in Article III. Because they can't always control the courts. Anytime a decision doesn't go their way, it's JUDICIAL ACTIVISM... but you never hear them cry fowl when the pedophile judge in AL wipes his ass with the law and does whatever he wants.

Bunch of phonies. You believe in nothing.

Now explain the Biden rule. For extra credit throw in a paragraph about how the Biden rule now applies to midterms when it didn’t during the Kagan nomination.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What a gigantic load of crap.

Conservatives cheat, gerrymander, and use whatever court they have a majority in to outright ignore the Constitution. Cheating is in con DNA.

do u actually believe that the Democrats don't gerrymander?

I very much suspect that the overwhelming vast majority of time, when you hear a LIbEral accusing conservatives of gerrymandering, that the LIbEral using the word has not the faintest clue what gerrymandering actually is, or what its limitations are.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What a gigantic load of crap.

Conservatives cheat, gerrymander, and use whatever court they have a majority in to outright ignore the Constitution. Cheating is in con DNA.

Thanks for making their point.

You think repeating what you hear from others makes a point? The OP is radical nonsense to be laughed at. You should figure out how strange it is when you try to appear coherent but miss the mark.

Radical nonsense ? Now that is rich.

You are about to see the SCOTUS go hard right.

Suck on it.

 

[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.

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...

Sorry, but Jonah is still pretty good and he's nailed it on this one.

The whole left wing concept of a living constitution that is modified by the courts is so ******* stupid.

There is a process to modify it. But the left can't even win an election (they should have won against an easy opponent)....so how are they going to get anything done.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

That's cute...but what way is that ?

Roe vs. Wade was a federal court jumping into state business.

If the SCOTUS outlawed abortions instead of sending them back to the states (where most will make it legal), I'd be pissed.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

As long as you have partisan politics taking over everything, the Supreme court will be partisan.

Get rid of partisan politics with Proportional Representation and the Supreme Court might end up being filled be proper people who look out for the interests of the country and not the interests of the guy who put them there.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

As long as you have partisan politics taking over everything, the Supreme court will be partisan.

Get rid of partisan politics with Proportional Representation and the Supreme Court might end up being filled be proper people who look out for the interests of the country and not the interests of the guy who put them there.

Bullshit.

The whole approach of the left has been to use the court to get what they want because they can't get it through the legislative process.

90% of people in 90% of school districts wanted prayer in schools.

Some ugly (and I do mean ugly) atheist got to the court and had it shut down.

 

[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.

So called "originalists" stood around with their thumb up their ass while Mitch, Ted, Marco and Co. put the Constitution on Hold for a year in 2016. And the Dems didn't do much to stop them as they thought Hillary was a shoe-in.

In the end, we found out that Ted Cruz really sees the Constitution as something that can be turned off when necessary -- like if a sitting black President is going to replace Justice Scalia. Don't you love how he played the GOP base as ignorant sheep telling them all how he found this magical 'precedent'...and they ate it up.


The constitution has been degraded into an often meaningless document that Government only follows when politically convenient.

The right will convince their rube low-educated voters, the Dems are going to take away their guns, meanwhile any overreach on Gun rights by Feds or states has been overturned by SCOTUS. "Gun Grab" fear tactics are about selling guns.

I find that most so-called "Constitutionists" don't really believe in the constitution as they don't really believe in Article III. Because they can't always control the courts. Anytime a decision doesn't go their way, it's JUDICIAL ACTIVISM... but you never hear them cry fowl when the pedophile judge in AL wipes his ass with the law and does whatever he wants.

Bunch of phonies. You believe in nothing.

Now explain the Biden rule. For extra credit throw in a paragraph about how the Biden rule now applies to midterms when it didn’t during the Kagan nomination.

The "Nut" part of his avatar is there for a reason.

 

[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.

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.

In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.

In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

 

[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.

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.

In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.

In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

 

[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.

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.

In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

What a gigantic load of crap.

Conservatives cheat, gerrymander, and use whatever court they have a majority in to outright ignore the Constitution. Cheating is in con DNA.

Thanks for making their point.

You think repeating what you hear from others makes a point? The OP is radical nonsense to be laughed at. You should figure out how strange it is when you try to appear coherent but miss the mark.

Like this is a new concept. The mention of a "Living Constitution" was from the 1930's.

FDR was pissed because the conservative court would not allow his bastardization to stand.

He tried his court packing scheme.

Death finally gave him a chance and he put a bunch of morons on the bench.

We are still reeling from the their stupdidity.

Time to do something different.

How do you rationalize Trump's comments as fine, and complain about FDR?

 

[my2¢]

The premise of the OP is something to hope for. Just too often I've witnessed that power corrupts, regardless of political party.

 

[whitehall]

"Living Constitution" means that the Bill of Rights gets to be interpreted by left wing administrations and laws are handed down by unelected judges.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Not much needs interpretation. It’s pretty well written. What we need is judges not looking for insane retreadings of it. Like the penalty for not buying insurance is a tax. Or somehow a well regulated militia is anything other than a single citizen.

Your statement that a well-regulated militia being a single citizen is a PRIME example of EXTREME individual interpertation.

In that one statement alone you've proven my argument.

Who are the militia? Who makes up the group? Who provides the arms?

The individual citizen does all of that. It’s pretty plain.

Seriously?

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

"Well-Regulated" - what do you think that means?

It means controlled by the state.

You seem to be the worst example of "I'll just interpert the Constitution any old way that I feel like".

You are a prime example of an extreme case!

Regulated means armed and prepared to defend themselves. If it was meant to be state run it would have said a well regulated state militia. But they didn’t say that because they knew in order to keep a free state you may actually have to defend yourself from that state. Not going to work if the state itself is the militia.

Wow are you a prime example, seriously...thanks for proving my argument!

So, in your interpertation, what would a non-well regulated miltia be?

Unarmed people who are not willing to defend themselves?

You don’t do counter points very well so let me ask you this.

All rights in the BoR are individual rights the government can’t regulate or take away from you. If that’s true then why would the 2A be any different from the others?

 

[Wry Catcher]

"Living Constitution" means that the Bill of Rights gets to be interpreted by left wing administrations and laws are handed down by unelected judges.

A living Constitution allows for Judicial Review, something which the hypocrites support when it suits them, and denies when it does not.