Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Sign in to follow this  
angelofdeath

the official "Scalito" thread

Recommended Posts

Guest KING BLING

The following article, with little bias explains where he got his nickname - a tendancy to be an "activist judge" despite precedent and a willingness to plow ahead through conflict of interest...note the last paragraph shows he recused himself only after he upheld the ruling and not before...

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5102700813.html

 

 

 

Samuel A. Alito Jr., 55, is a jurist in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. Nicknamed "Scalito," or "little Scalia," by some lawyers, the federal appeals court judge is a frequent dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country.

 

Educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School, Alito was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in 1990. He had worked for the Justice Department in the Reagan administration and served as U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey.

 

In 1991, he was the lone dissenter in a 3rd Circuit decision striking down a Pennsylvania law's requirement that women tell their husbands before having an abortion. Alito also wrote a 1997 ruling that Jersey City officials did not violate the Constitution with a holiday display that included a creche, a menorah and secular symbols of the Christmas season.

 

Three years ago Alito drew conflict-of-interest accusations after he upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the Vanguard Group. Alito had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with the mutual fund company at the time. He denied doing anything improper but recused himself from further involvement in the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

 

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.� [bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

 

ALITO WOULD ALLOW DISABILITY-BASED DISCRIMINATION: In Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, the majority said the standard for proving disability-based discrimination articulated in Alito’s dissent was so restrictive that “few if any…cases would survive summary judgment.� [Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991]

 

ALITO WOULD STRIKE DOWN THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT: The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) “guarantees most workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one.� The 2003 Supreme Court ruling upholding FMLA [Nevada v. Hibbs, 2003] essentially reversed a 2000 decision by Alito which found that Congress exceeded its power in passing the law. [Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, 2000]

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard� and “ignores our precedent.� In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.� [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

awesome at getting big government into our personal lives that is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm, deciding whether or not women can have an abortion, allowing unautorized strip searches, and striking down family medical leave?

 

does it get any more personal than a government inside a uterus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not to mention that it is yet ANOTHER white guy

making decisions for a country full of a very diverse group of people

 

my father was right

 

white men are going to cling and claw onto every last bit of power they have left

even if it means destoying everyone else in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING
Originally posted by KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by KING BLING+Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

[/b]

 

I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

 

I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: In his dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Alito concurred with the majority in supporting the restrictive abortion-related measures passed by the Pennsylvania legislature in the late 1980’s. Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion. The Supreme Court later rejected Alito’s view, voting to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 1991]

 

ALITO WOULD ALLOW RACE-BASED DISCRIMINATION: Alito dissented from a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority explained that Alito would have protected racist employers by “immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer’s belief that it had selected the ‘best’ candidate was the result of conscious racial bias.� [bray v. Marriott Hotels, 1997]

 

ALITO HOSTILE TOWARD IMMIGRANTS: In two cases involving the deportation of immigrants, the majority twice noted Alito’s disregard of settled law. In Dia v. Ashcroft, the majority opinion states that Alito’s dissent “guts the statutory standard� and “ignores our precedent.� In Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, the majority stated Alito’s opinion contradicted “well-recognized rules of statutory construction.� [Dia v. Ashcroft, 2003; Ki Se Lee v. Ashcroft, 2004]"

 

the other 2 seem fucked up, however the source is probably michael moronized.

 

abortion is like this:

if roe is overturned, it doesnt guarantee nationwide abortion ban. it sends the issue back to the states. there is no constitutional authority, to regulate a social issue. the half assed argument of privacy can easily be argued in the same manner for the "right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" to all people, since the fetus is living, it should be guaranteed life.

why is roe a bad decision? because it usurps the 10th amendment and takes away the power of hte states to decide the issue. if it is a privacy issue, why dont i have the right to kill my kid any time until age of 18? its my privacy right? but yet if if a guy breaks into my house, rapes my wife, slices up my daughter and hangs my dog, and i shoot the guy with his back to me and he is fleeing, i go to jail. hypocrisy anyone?

 

racial preferences:

what is a free country if they cant decide who they want to hire? the civil rights act equalized everyone. the acts following created affirmative action, quoatas, and set asides to certain people. how is this right? how about EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL, SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR NONE. what is fair about the centralized federal judicial dictatorship forcing people to hire a certain number of a certain kind of people with no reguard to qualifications, or education?

 

immigration:

 

there is no such thing as "settled law" in terms of courts. decisions are constantly being overturned and reversed. what has the liberal establishment been doing since FDR? overturning and reversing previous rulings and laws.

illegal immigration is a national issue, not a state issue, as set out by the constitution. the states should assist and work with the feds. all illegals should be rounded up and sent home, amnesty should be trashed and our borders secured.

 

 

the funny thing is, constitutional constructionists like Scalia, and Thomas are immediately labeled racist, because they believe in the constitution. you guys think the federal government is the answer to everything and all that is needed is more.

 

when our government was first created there were 3 federal crimes. treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. look at us now.

centralization is the easiest way to promote tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING
Originally posted by Krakatau+Nov 1 2005, 02:24 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Krakatau - Nov 1 2005, 02:24 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by KING BLING@Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE:  Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

 

I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

 

I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?

[/b]

 

 

I write most of my stuff here from work so sometimes as I write inbetween work my ideas get jumbled. By appearance the family was searched under the guise that in some way the accused relationship to them makes them assesories - IE: if the father is guilty, his family should be subjected to the same scrutiny. That was my impression and I offered the other possible scenarios to reflect how the family was guilty by association not neccesarily because they were suspected of anything.

 

did that clarify?

 

I like that this guy doesn't agree the FMLA - because families with kids in the hospital or in otherwise life threatening situations should also worry about losing a job...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by KING BLING+Nov 1 2005, 05:12 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KING BLING - Nov 1 2005, 05:12 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by Krakatau@Nov 1 2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by KING BLING@Nov 1 2005, 03:35 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-KING BLING@Oct 31 2005, 05:50 PM

Given the web site name, I'm sure there is some defence against some of these claims - but the pattern seems sweeping enough...

 

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/10/31/samuel-alitos-america

 

 

ALITO WOULD OVERTURN ROE V. WADE: Alito went further, however, saying the majority was wrong to strike down a requirement that women notify their spouses before having an abortion.

 

ALITO SUPPORTS UNAUTHORIZED STRIP SEARCHES: In Doe v. Groody, Alito agued that police officers had not violated constitutional rights when they strip searched a mother and her ten-year-old daughter while carrying out a search warrant that authorized only the search of a man and his home. [Doe v. Groody, 2004]

 

 

These two cases in particular reflect to me the idea that a husband owns or has an asumed position of control over his family. Would a man have to ask his wife before getting a vecectamy <spelling>? If a criminal is at a legal party should everyone be searched even if he is the focus and sole intent of whatever warrants apply? Were his family members arrested or otherwise detained or were they suspect simply by there relationship?

 

The descisions at a glance do not appear to carry a universal application and thus go against the intent of equal protection...I don't think I like the guy - Angel, talk to us about what good these cases have done...

 

I guess you either just had a bit of a lapse when you said that the two cases reflect that idea, or I need you to explain the one about strip searches.

 

I don't like the guy. Bush nominating Meiyers and then going Scalia.... it just feels like Meiyers was almost a buffer nomination (with no shot of making it) thrown out in order to grease the shoot. You'll drink stagnant water a lot easier if you have a sip of gasoline first, ya know?

 

 

I write most of my stuff here from work so sometimes as I write inbetween work my ideas get jumbled. By appearance the family was searched under the guise that in some way the accused relationship to them makes them assesories - IE: if the father is guilty, his family should be subjected to the same scrutiny. That was my impression and I offered the other possible scenarios to reflect how the family was guilty by association not neccesarily because they were suspected of anything.

 

did that clarify?

 

I like that this guy doesn't agree the FMLA - because families with kids in the hospital or in otherwise life threatening situations should also worry about losing a job...

[/b]

Yes it did, thanks. When I saw that case I assumed it to be more of a 'if you are with him, you could conceal something for him (regardless of relationship)'. Throwing out that he supports cops in strip searching a ten year old girl without the consent of her mother (I am assuming) is a good tactic though. Hmm. I hadn't really considered that angle. Now I don't like him even more.

 

 

What's wrong with not supporting the FMLA? I used to work with a guy that used to get days off all the time with that.... shit used to piss me off so damn much. Asshole's six year old gets a terminal case of leukimia and all of a sudden it's 'four days off this week' Jones... What a dick.

 

Really though, that is a fucked up stance to have, and I'd love to hear his reasoning behind it. Couple of logical loophoops he must be jumping through to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING

http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/fmla/

 

Compaines can require proof from doctors of a condition at any time...

 

I used to be a supervisor and would see some people really need this stuff, and some who would abuse it. At the end of the day, those people who would abuse it were on my "you will be shatted upon as soon as your child/spouse gets into better shape" list.

 

Keep in mind, FMLA does not mean the person using it gets paid for that time - so if that person is not using sick days, he isn't getting paid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i see your point angel

 

but i think that these judges have an agenda

shit won't be put to the states, until the federal law changes and it becomes a question of states defying the law (such as in medicinal marijuana, where clearly, states are making their own decisions on legality, and the feds are not respectiing those decisions)

 

a privacy issue is what goes on inside a woman's own body

once the kid is no longer inside of her body, you can't really argue about it being private

in addition to the fact that people deal with all kinds of extenuating issues relating to pregnancy

 

did you know that, THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG PREGNANT WOMEN IS MURDER

 

meaning sometimes, these women have a lot of shit to think about when they decide about the future of their baby, and THEIR BODY

 

**since when did i say that the federal government is the answer?

i wish theyu would spend LESS TIME, LESS MONEY

worrying about what people do in their bedrooms and what decisions people make about pregnancy

the federal government is attempting to start micromanaging people's lives (especially when you factor in all the patriot act rules)

 

we need a federal government to regulate CORPORATE BEHAVIOR

not personal morality

we could use a federal government answer to health care, in my opinion

but i don't see the feds as a very good answer to very many problems (see new orleans)

i hate their fucking foreign policy and every damn pork project they support

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by symbols@Nov 3 2005, 01:20 PM

i see your point angel

 

but i think that these judges have an agenda

shit won't be put to the states, until the federal law changes and it becomes a question of states defying the law (such as in medicinal marijuana, where clearly, states are making their own decisions on legality, and the feds are not respectiing those decisions)

 

a privacy issue is what goes on inside a woman's own body

once the kid is no longer inside of her body, you can't really argue about it being private

in addition to the fact that people deal with all kinds of extenuating issues relating to pregnancy

 

did you know that, THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH AMONG PREGNANT WOMEN IS MURDER

 

meaning sometimes, these women have a lot of shit to think about when they decide about the future of their baby, and THEIR BODY

 

**since when did i say that the federal government is the answer?

i wish theyu would spend LESS TIME, LESS MONEY

worrying about what people do in their bedrooms and what decisions people make about pregnancy

the federal government is attempting to start micromanaging people's lives (especially when you factor in all the patriot act rules)

 

we need a federal government to regulate CORPORATE BEHAVIOR

not personal morality

we could use a federal government answer to health care, in my opinion

but i don't see the feds as a very good answer to very many problems (see new orleans)

i hate their fucking foreign policy and every damn pork project they support

^^^^icon20.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think we are coming at common ground, symbols, but from different angles.

i think we both want the feds off of our backs. the thing is when someone advocates a return to our original consitutional liberty, you immediately get slandered. our federal government was created to protect our "God given" rights. the constitution recognized these rights proceeded to LIMIT government, not grant it power. the constitution allows it to do very limited things.

 

i agree with you 100% that the feds shouldnt be regulating morality. however i believe morality can be regulated by individual sovereign states, as did our founders. i believe in the defense of marriage act in theory, but not an amendment. it usurps the powers of the individual states. if roe was overturned, all it does it leaves it to the states to decide the matter. this is the way our country was set up and the way it should be. this is why i believe our country to be superior to every other country in history. the system of federalism, if properly used as it was for over a century, is a wonderful thing. decentralized power.

 

this is where i think we differ. in addition to the government stopping regulation on social issues, it should also stop regulating EVERY OTHER THING NOT ENUMERATED IN THE CONSTITUTION.

 

as you pointed out with katrina, a good working federal government, doing above and beyond its duty, is essentially an oxymoron. private donations, private aid, voluntary aid from surrounding states/the rest of the country, would of handled the problem 100 times better than fema with their credit cards with 250,000$ limits.

 

but back to judges. i do not know if alito has an agenda. i dont believe he is out to ban abortion nationwide, as the christian science monitor is already going against him for 3 "pro" abortion votes. 2 more scalia's is what we need!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING

Lest We Forget....

 

A little quote <as discussed> I read today that summed up our current nominee:

 

 

Alito promised senators in 1990 -- when he was nominated to the 3rd Circuit Court seat -- that he would "disqualify myself from any cases involving the Vanguard companies." But he participated in that 2002 case where a three-judge panel on which he served dismissed an appeal of a lower court ruling favorable to the Vanguard Group.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/10/alito.ap/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont get why everyone is so against a father being informed that his partner is going to get an abortion? it doesnt mean he has the power to tell her not to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by yum@Nov 10 2005, 09:21 PM

i dont get why everyone is so against a father being informed that his partner is going to get an abortion? it doesnt mean he has the power to tell her not to.

I agree, I think dads get shafted regarding reproductive rights.

 

And for a tree hugger twist on Alito from the Grist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING

This is the idea:

If a girl has herpes she is not required to tell you - even if she should. From a personal responcibility standpoint its a matter of whom you as a man choose to sleep with and the protections you take. From a legal principle standpoint - your body is your body, you are protected from forcfully doing anything to it (within reason) including seeking permission as an adult to have procedures, such as abortion, performed...

 

The law should not compel individuals to seek permission from another in regards to there body. If you choose to visit a sick person you take the risk of catching it regardless of if you give permission. Moral: Be careful what you do so if a mistake happens, the person involved shares the idea that its a choice that will effect both of your lives...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/14/alito/index.html

 

 

 

Alito denied that Constitution protected abortion

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a two-decades old document, Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito voiced his support of the Reagan administration's fight to show "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

 

Alito's 1985 letter, which was part of a newly released set of documents from his federal government service, was an application to be deputy assistant attorney general. He was already working in the department's solicitor general's office, where he helped prepare cases to be argued in court on behalf of the government.

 

In the memo, he writes, "I am and always have been a conservative and an adherent to the same philosophical views that I believe are central to this administration."

 

Later he writes about his accomplishments, "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to abortion."

 

He notes that as a federal employee, "I have been unable to take a role in partisan politics. However, I am a lifelong registered Republican."

 

Liberal groups were quick to criticize Alito's memo. "Combined with his judicial record, Judge Alito's letter underscores our concern that he would vote to turn back the clock on decades of judicial precedent protecting privacy, equal opportunity, religious freedom, and so much more," said Ralph Neas, president of People For the American Way. "And it is further evidence that if Samuel Alito is confirmed to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, he will shift the Supreme Court dramatically to the right for decades to come."

 

The documents are among dozens of pages released Monday by the Reagan and Bush presidential libraries. Alito did get the job he applied for, and went on to serve as U.S. attorney in New Jersey from 1987 to 1990. He then became a federal appeals court judge, his current job.

 

He was nominated last month to take O'Connor's seat. Abortion is certain to become a key issue in confirmation hearings.

 

As a judge, he dissented in 1991 as his appeals court threw out a Pennsylvania provision requiring a married woman seeking an abortion to notify her husband. The Supreme Court later upheld that ruling.

 

Alito has told senators in private meetings in recent days he has "great respect" for precedent, including the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling legalizing abortion. But he would not say whether he would continue to uphold that ruling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm, there are a lot of rights we take for granted that are not "in the constitution." Originalists/textualists are dumb. Let me explain why.

Originalists are dumb on three points: 1) There is no "original intent" of the constitution the federalists and anti-federalists were diametrically opposed on a lot of issues which means that the constitution is a compromise. 2) The idea that the framers wanted or thought that their intent would be used 200 years from the drafting is asenine. 3) If Originalism is true, the framers thought that blacks were 2/3 of a person, therefore Brown v. Bd. of Educ. should be overturned immediately.

 

Textualism is dumb simply because there is no way to read a document and for it to have anything but the most superficial meaning without understanding the context and interpreting the words.

 

I'm a moderate, but I understand that idealogues on both sides are dumb.

 

Finally, abortion is a pretty dumb application of federalism for a lot of reasons that I won't get into here. But as a matter of practicality even if Roe is overturned most of the blue states have abortion in the state constitutions.

 

Milton - Delusion of Juristic Grandeur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest KING BLING

I agree with your first point, but not what you added as opinion. Either way, well said.

 

If things were as some of the members here would have them most of the red states would be with little to offer its citizens. You would have the concentration of science, ideas and progress in states like New York and California, and stuggling farmers without subsidies or transport routes in barely populated states. I mean, the current farm industry in america would have no financial support encouraging an artificial market, the south no emergency aid when hurricanes and tornadoes come through, and nothing to offer that would compete with third world imports. So fuck it - let it be so. Food, textiles, industrial production and other primary red state resources are in such abundance if demand is there that beef might become a rare treat but otherwise the world would continue spinning. I'll add to this if it inspires responce, otherwise, I think I'm a blue state constitutionalist - bring us your poor and willing to work and we will give them one of our many Ivy League scholarships - you can give them applications to BYU and Oklahoma State so that when they graduate they can manage the farm workers and dirt roads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×