Judge Roberts backlash

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Thomas wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Posner is an asshole, plain and simple

Why? If you found that your friends had turned into a cult of lunatics, wouldn't you leave the cult? That's the normal, human reaction. How does it translate to being an asshole?

Finn happens to be correct; Posner is an asshole.

But, not because of his recent comments. That's just a case of an asshole actually saying something that's not as crazy as normal. And I don't believe he is being lauded by the Left all of a sudden; more of a case of, 'look, even THIS asshole realizes how crazy they've all become.'

Cycloptichorn

Actually, I fucked this up. I had confused Posner with Bork, which is a huge error on my part. I apologize to all involved.

Cycloptichron

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Thanks for correcting yourself. But just to be clear, has Robert Bork fallen out with his party as well? I don't like Bork nearly as much as I like Posner, but this would make this exodus of the top Republican jurists even more remarkable than I thought.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Thanks for correcting yourself. But just to be clear, has Robert Bork fallen out with his party as well? I don't like Bork nearly as much as I like Posner, but this would make this exodus of the top Republican jurists even more remarkable than I thought.

No, Bork hasn't, but he is currently involved in a case where he's suing the Yale Club for damages (punitive damages, even!) after falling while climbing stairs there to give a speech, despite his life-long vocal opposition to tort law allowing such damages. I lost what shred of respect I had for the guy when I read about that a few years ago.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

These are not adults leveling serious criticism; these are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13.

1 Reply

@revelette,

The conservative camp have been showing more immaturity on our political stage than any time in our history. When has any congress member called the president a "liar" during any session? When has anyone interrupted any president in the past during their speech?

We all know how the conservatives would have reacted if the tables were turned.

They need to "grow up." When they show disrespect for our president by Americans, that carries into the future of this country.

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

The backlash against Judge Roberts has been rather extreme. Seems like a stupid thing to do just because he voted against something you don't like. I find it irritating that the talking heads on TV and in print are complaining about it. He is a Supreme Court Chief Justice FFS. Egt a grip and get on to the next step. Trying to crucify him now is pointless and just gives the left another thing to gloat about. He made the vote he did in good conscious (I hope!) and made what he thought was the correct vote based on the evidence presented to him. That's what he is SUPPOSED to do!

Blah, just depressing how the over reaction is so extreme. But I guess that's the game today. If you don't go extreme, don't go.

Judge Roberts is human with a conscience. So when he saw how much good it would do for millions of families, including helpless children, he did the courageous thing.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I'll say this for Clarence Thomas: his has been a far more consistent -- and principled -- jurisprudence than that of Antonin Scalia. He's consistently wrong, in my opinion, but at least he's consistent.

Really? I tend to think he is often right. Not always though.

0 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

In practical application, Constitutional absolutism makes about as much sense as fundamentalist Christianity to me. Even less. The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it.

It is supposed to be a living document only in regards to constitutional amendments changing it. Aside from that, its meaning does not change.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

It's because as "constitutional originalists" they very often suspend considerations of the common good and common sense in favor of outdated notions that were conceived in ignorance, bigotry and elitism.

That is incorrect. The Constitution and its protection of our freedom and liberty will never be outdated. Neither were they conceived in bigotry or ignorance.

The restrictions provided by the Constitution are also to the benefit of the common good. The Constitution guards our freedom against those who would vote to abolish it.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

snood wrote:
In practical application, Constitutional absolutism makes about as much sense as fundamentalist Christianity to me. Even less. The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it.

It is supposed to be a living document only in regards to constitutional amendments changing it. Aside from that, its meaning does not change.

Simply foolish to say this. Ignorant of the way history works. 'Meaning' is a function of perception, not of absolutes.

Cycloptichorn

3 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Some people can't see the dynamics of social changes when it's constantly in flux. Who would have figured that Hispanics and Asians would become the majority in this country only a few decades ago?

We are and always will be a country of immigrants; that's how our society remains competitive in the world marketplace. We must continue to offer the best freedoms, education and opportunity to advance oneself; that's the attraction of the US.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

That's why some people need to have the definition of "is" told to them.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

oralloy wrote:
snood wrote:
In practical application, Constitutional absolutism makes about as much sense as fundamentalist Christianity to me. Even less. The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it.

It is supposed to be a living document only in regards to constitutional amendments changing it. Aside from that, its meaning does not change.

Simply foolish to say this. Ignorant of the way history works. 'Meaning' is a function of perception, not of absolutes.

Cycloptichorn

The only valid way to interpret the Constitution is to determine what the Framers intended, and enforce their will.

Where the Constitution has been amended, the will of the Amenders is to be determined and enforced.

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The only valid way to interpret the Constitution is to determine what the Framers intended, and enforce their will.

Which is a function of perception.
It's easy to argue that they meant one thing or another. Why did they mean "arms" means any future designed weapon but "freedom from search and seizure" doesn't include any future designed means of communication?

There is no "will of the Framers" other than how someone wants to interpret it.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Er... no.

You interpret what the law says, that's why it's the law. You don't go to the lawmaker and ask, "hey, what did you really mean?"

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Determining 'what they intended' is also a function of perception. You really have no formal training in history or historiography, do you?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Damn it Cyclo. Quit showing off your education. Historiography?

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

It's the study of the methodology of historical studies. Sort of an examination of the processes you use to decide what's historically valid and accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Thomas,

His opinion that conservatives have turned into a cult of lunatics is just that, his opinion and one that is so absurd it hardly bears consideration.

It's obvious to all who frequent this forum that I have little use for Liberals and yet even I wouldn't call them a cult of lunatics.

But let's address your question.

If I came to the conclusion that all of my friends were members of a lunatic cult then in absolutely all likelihood, I had become a lunatic, and so whether or not I "left" the imaginary cult, of which I had never been a member, would be immaterial.

A point in fact is that not all of the "friends" of Justice Roberts have criticized him; not by a long shot.

If he ever considered all Republican or even conservative politicians, pundits and bloggers his "friends" then he is, emotionally, a child; which, of course, he is not.

Subscribing to liberal or conservative ideals does not signify membership in a cult (particularly as Posner obviously defines the term).

If you are a liberal or a conservative and you find that some people who you previously felt shared your ideals (hardly the definition of a "friend") are now lunatics, it is lunacy to jetison your previously held ideals and adopt their opposites.

Depending upon how you view a "normal" human, you may consider Posner's comments in line with "normal" human reaction, but I don't have so low an opinion of humans (nor do I think you do) to consider abandoning one's principles in the face of rather ineffectual criticism to be normally human.

Since I don't believe Posner is a simpleton with the IQ of a very young child, he must be an asshole.

What you should consider is that you are not only accepting his obviously absurd argument because it comports with your politics, but that it has caused him to rise in your esteem.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Er... no.

You interpret what the law says, that's why it's the law. You don't go to the lawmaker and ask, "hey, what did you really mean?"

That sort of sloppiness might pass muster with someone like you, but people who care about correctly interpreting the law will try to figure out what it is actually supposed to mean.

0 Replies

Judge Roberts backlash

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know