2
   

Rehnquist has passed away

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 11:01 am
Foxfyre wrote:
DTOM writes
Quote:
could you explain what you mean by that ?


We have four quite liberal SCOTUS justices, two to three moderates, and two bonafide constructionist .....


see, what bugs here is, you say liberals, moderates and constructionists. to me, that's the word game. clearly, what is meant is "conservative". why not just say so?

why? because if you say instead, something like "strict constructionist", it automatically registers in the mind that the so called liberals and moderates are doing something wrong or bad to the constitution. to simply say "conservative" it announces the ideological bias of the movement.

a very clever tactic. but one that is rapidly losing it's sparkle

now, you may or may not mean or use it in that way, but you have to admit i'm pretty close to the mark, right ?


Foxfyre wrote:
Does it strike anybody else as really off the charts that the first question anybody wants to know about a potential Supreme Court justice is whether he is pro or anti-abortion?


what really does strike me as off the chart is that we are still goin' hammer and tongs over an issue that was decided and ruled to be the law of the land 30+ years ago.

the ruling is clear in focus; personal freedom and privacy.

the ruling is clear in effect; if you choose to have an abortion, you have a legal right to do so. if you choose not to have an abortion, no one can force you to.

what the strict constructionist agenda seeks is to invert that ruling.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 11:16 am
My point DTOM is I don't want conservative judges making laws any more than I want liberal judges making law. Constructionists don't make law. They interpret law and make judgments as to its constitutionality based on strict interpretations of constitutional intent.

I didn't call those judges 'conservative' because it was not their conservatism that I value, but it is their constructionist point of view that is important, not their ideology.

Now if ideology is more important to you, then that is fine. Ideology seems to be more important to most liberals and even some conservatives. It is not more important to me.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 11:48 am
Foxfyre wrote:
My point DTOM is I don't want conservative judges making laws any more than I want liberal judges making law. Constructionists don't make law. They interpret law and make judgments as to its constitutionality based on strict interpretations of constitutional intent.

You're living in a fantasy world. "Strict constructionists" like Scalia and Thomas make law all the time.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:00 pm
Care to give a recent example Joe?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:05 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
My point DTOM is I don't want conservative judges making laws any more than I want liberal judges making law. Constructionists don't make law. They interpret law and make judgments as to its constitutionality based on strict interpretations of constitutional intent.


first off, you and i have had enough discussions for you to know that my "ideology" (or, idiotology as my wife says Laughing ) is all over the map and i don't toe any party line but my own.

secondly, may i then assume that you aren't in favor of the many amendments to the constitution ?

and lastly, if we really want to distill the constitution down to it's core intent (much the way that the bible can be distilled to "do unto others...), the message is "more freedom, not less".

do you agree with that?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:11 pm
DTOM writes
Quote:
first off, you and i have had enough discussions for you to know that my "ideology" (or, idiotology as my wife says ) is all over the map and i don't toe any party line but my own.

secondly, may i then assume that you aren't in favor of the many amendments to the constitution ?

and lastly, if we really want to distill the constitution down to it's core intent (much the way that the bible can be distilled to "do unto others...), the message is "more freedom, not less".

do you agree with that?


Firstyly, re your first point, ditto for me.

Secondly, those amendments to the constitution were duly debated and passed by Congress and ratified in legally conducted elections by the various people of the states. My objection is to the stuff that is made federal law that niether the Congress nor the President nor the people have any say in whatsoever.

And thirdly, Bingo! If only the justices were limit their decisions to the Constitution as it was written and has been amended, we would have infinitely more freedoms and, in my opinion, more protections.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 12:34 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
DTOM writes
Quote:
first off, you and i have had enough discussions for you to know that my "ideology" (or, idiotology as my wife says ) is all over the map and i don't toe any party line but my own.

secondly, may i then assume that you aren't in favor of the many amendments to the constitution ?

and lastly, if we really want to distill the constitution down to it's core intent (much the way that the bible can be distilled to "do unto others...), the message is "more freedom, not less".

do you agree with that?


Firstyly, re your first point, ditto for me.

yes, and i appreciate that about you.

Secondly, those amendments to the constitution were duly debated and passed by Congress and ratified in legally conducted elections by the various people of the states. My objection is to the stuff that is made federal law that niether the Congress nor the President nor the people have any say in whatsoever.

but see, they aren't making law. they rule on cases based on their interpretation of whether or not the spirit of the constitution makes allowances for something.

don't you think it's better to ere on the side of "more freedom, not less"?


And thirdly, Bingo! If only the justices were limit their decisions to the Constitution as it was written and has been amended, we would have infinitely more freedoms and, in my opinion, more protections.


ummm. how does that work, foxy?

any amendment to the constitution, no matter the mechanics by which they are achieved, show that in reality, there's nothing strict about it's construction.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 01:07 pm
Perhaps you could elaborate on which amendments you think curtail freedoms, DTOM? Seems to me they have mostly given freedom to women and minority groups that were not provided for in the original Constitution.

Perhaps you could show me where Congress or the people had any say on banning of religious symbols on public property, prohibiting states or local communities from banning or regulating abortion, or giving cities the right to seize private property from one person and give it to another for private use. Whether or not you like these laws, the fact remains they are laws the Supreme Court took it upon itself to enact.

Why would the liberals be so up in arms to block appointment of conservative judges? Because they want SCOTUS to approve laws that they want. Ditto for the extreme Right Wing who want to get rid of liberal judges and have things go their way.

If we all insist on strict constructionists as the President is insisting, neither side gets the power it wants and we can get back to elected representatives who can be held accountable passing the laws.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 04:19 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Perhaps you could elaborate on which amendments you think curtail freedoms, DTOM?


but that's not at all what i said, foxy. you're compounding aspects of two different exchanges.

read it again and we'll push on. Cool
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 04:46 pm
I may have misconstrued your intent for sure, DTOM, but when you say in back to back posts:

"secondly, may i then assume that you aren't in favor of the many amendments to the constitution ?"

and

"don't you think it's better to ere on the side of "more freedom, not less"?"

along with arguing in favor of SCOTUS making their own interpretations of what the law should be, I did indeed connect the two.

The Constitution allows for its own amendment so amendments make it in no way fluid and borderless. I see no comparison between a legally executed amendment, ratified by the people, and SCOTUS doing its own thing with no input by the people required.

What makes it particularly dangerous is the Constitutional crisis that will occur if the Legislature seeks to amend the Constitution and their very effort is declared unconstiutional by the high court. That would move the Court from its intended role as judge and arbitrator to supreme high dictator.

I want constructionists for Supreme Court judges and leave the flexibility up to the people through their lawfully elected representatives.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 07:05 pm
hmmm... let me try it this way;

1) the sc makes rulings based on whether or not their interpretation of the constitution allows for that ruling. when interpreting the constitution, that the ruling should allow a citizen more freedom, not less freedom. that's what the spirit of the constitution is about, personal freedom.

2) right. the constitution allows for itself to be amended. that's why i say that it isn't really meant to be immutable, i.e. of strict construct.

better ?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 07:39 pm
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
hmmm... let me try it this way;

1) the sc makes rulings based on whether or not their interpretation of the constitution allows for that ruling. when interpreting the constitution, that the ruling should allow a citizen more freedom, not less freedom. that's what the spirit of the constitution is about, personal freedom.

2) right. the constitution allows for itself to be amended. that's why i say that it isn't really meant to be immutable, i.e. of strict construct.

better ?


LOL, would you show that first sentence to your English teacher? I'm not sure what you said there, but if I got your gist, I don't think the Supreme Court has yet come up with one of those 'do it yourself' laws that didn't take away at least as much freedom from one side as it might afford to another. Some just flat take away a freedom period.

I believe the Founders knew they couldn't cover every issues that would come up for all time and that is why the ability to amend it went into the final draft of the Constitution. The process of amendment is so tough to do, its no wonder that it has been used so sparingly in 200+ years.

Once an amendment is done, however, then SCOTUS was intended to consider it immutable just as it should consider the Consitution immutable and all laws of the land immutable until they are changed. I don't want the judstices themselves messing with those laws.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 08:01 pm
hah! that sentence is a little ethereal isn't it ? Laughing

okay, well we aren't gonna finish this one tonite. mrs. dtom's ringing the dinner bell.

have a good night, foxy. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Sep, 2005 08:18 pm
Nite DTOM.....bon appetite.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/18/2022 at 03:26:57