the official "Scalito" thread

[angelofdeath]

"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."

 

 

first point:

 

"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"

 

your point drives my point home, very good. the constitution was written basically as to establish a free trade zone among the states, as most states imposed tariffs on commerce between states under the articles. it was written to please the anti federalists who didnt want a concentration of power. there wouldnt of been a constitution ratified if it wasnt for the bill of rights. the "original intent" is what the constitution says, not what someone wants it to say. there was debate over stuff in the constitution before it was ratified, once ratified it was the supreme law of the land.

 

2nd point:

 

"2) The idea that the framers wanted or thought that their intent would be used 200 years from the drafting is asenine."

 

this point is bogus. the consitution says, what it says. it can be amended however. lets look what madison said in the federalist papers...

 

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

 

third point:

 

" 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."

 

most originalists believe that the feds do not have power to regulate this issue. they believe it is the job of the soveriegn states. the constitution was amended to make blacks equal. this made it a federal issue. blacks are equal and things like affirmative action are not consitutional. Walter Williams a black conservative (an originalist, if you will) makes a great point that more tyranny than any jim crow law will come to this land at the hand of a strong central government. he believes the states should retain reclaim there sovereign powers through the non existent 9th and 10th amendments.

he also says some other things like...

 

and about students...

"Black politicians and civil rights organizations' loyalty to the education establishment means academic doom to black youngsters. Washington, D.C,. politics and its schools, among the worse in the nation, are a case in point. Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, along with most members of the Congressional Black Caucus, use private schools to educate their children. But, when D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams broke ranks with most black elected-officials and endorsed recently proposed education vouchers, Norton blasted him as being "a sell-out.Whom do you think Frederick Douglass would deem the sell-out: those who seek an alternative to rotten schools that cost taxpayers $13,000 a year per student or those who support the status quo?"

 

or...

 

"I don't blame only politicians. For the most part, they're only the instruments of a people who have growing contempt for our Constitution. You say, "Hold it, Williams. Now you've gone too far!" Check it out. How many votes do you think a James Madison-type senatorial candidate would get if his campaign theme was something like this: "Elect me to office. I will protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. Because there's no constitutional authority for Congress spending on the objects of benevolence, don't expect for me to vote for prescription drugs for the elderly, handouts to farmers and food stamps for the poor. Instead, I'll fight these and other unconstitutional congressional expenditures"? I'll tell you how many votes he'll get: It will be Williams' vote, and that's it."

 

but its quite clear this man is racist, like the consitution.

 

Joseph Sobran, an orginalist sums things up pretty good. (see below) our founders, originalists themselves, favored a small limited government, with VERY FEW POWERS. this was normal, everyday thought. for shits sake we just got done fighting a revolution over an assfuck wanting to tax us without the colonies having representation in parliament. this was common classical liberal thought at the time. look at us now....

 

"If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist."

[Guest KING BLING]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/latestne...dex.php?id=4978

 

 

Fox News Won't Show Ad Opposing Alito

 

WASHINGTON - Fox News is refusing to air an ad critical of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, citing its lawyers' contention that the spot is factually incorrect.

 

A spokesman for the groups sponsoring the ad said the network's decision reflects the political right's effort to shield President Bush's choice for the high court.

 

The ad says that as an appellate court judge, Alito has "ruled to make it easier for corporations to discriminate ... even voted to approve strip search of a 10-year-old girl." Referring to a document Alito wrote in 1985 while seeking a job in the Reagan administration, it quotes him as saying that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."

 

The groups backing the ad include the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil rights, People for The American Way and abortion rights organizations.

 

In a 2004 decision, the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in the case of four police officers who faced a lawsuit after the search of a mother and her 10-year-old daughter in the course of executing a search warrant for narcotics.

 

The court said "searching Jane and Mary Doe for evidence beyond the scope of the warrant and without probable cause violated their clearly established Fourth Amendment rights." The court pointed out that "a search warrant for a premises does not constitute a license to search everyone inside."

 

Alito dissented in the case, saying the best reading of the warrant is that it authorized the search of anyone found on the premises. He added that even if the warrant didn't explicitly give that authorization, "a reasonable police officer could certainly have read the warrant as doing so."

 

Paul Shur, a spokesman for Fox, said that according to the network's lawyers, the ad is "factually incorrect and we've given them an opportunity to fix it."

 

Said Jim Jordan, a spokesman for the groups: "The entire right wing establishment, from Pat Robertson to Jerry Falwell to Fox News, has circled the wagons around Sam Alito."

 

Asked about changing the ad in response to Fox's request, Jordan said, "Roger Ailes doesn't get to edit our ads." Ailes is chairman of Fox News.

 

Officials said the ad would run on cable television news programs nationally as well as in Maine and Rhode Island, two states that have three moderate Republican senators.

 

They declined to say how much would be spent, but officials at rival organizations placed the expenditure at less than $65,000, an amount unlikely to make a significant impact.

[sillysiphilis]

"...a frequent dissenter with a reputation for having one of the sharpest conservative minds in the country."

Out of context that makes no sense whatsoever.

[Milton]

Here is the thing. If what they say is true we are going to get another Scalia on the court. The question becomes, what does this mean for the constitutional law doctrine?

 

1) first and foremost, don't shit yourselves just yet. It takes a long ass time for the court to overturn a prior decision. They have this thing way up there which is called stare decisis it has the effect of making prior decisions binding on newer decision unless the court finds a compelling reason to overturn a case.

 

2) But, what the court can do is create tiny exceptions in its old doctrine in order to basically subsume the old one. Then scalia will come out with an opinion that says "the exemptions have swallowed teh rule lets create a new rule without all the exceptions."

 

3) O'Connor was the swing vote on a lot of issues both in abortion context as well as the free speech context. Prior to the current term there were four liberals (Ginsberg, Breyer Stevens and Souter) two swing votes (O'Connor and Kennedy) and three conservatives (Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist) this created pretty interesting outcomes because the case would go depending on how the swing votes decided. Argumetns would be made to target O'Connor and Kennedy in order to get a decision. But now, nobody knows what teh fuck is going on. O'Connors replacement with ScAlito measn that a swing vote has turned into conservative outpost. However, Roberts depending on what he does could turn Rehnquists position into a swing vote. (depending on how the cases come down currently.) This would basically even out the court but given his appointment by Bush it seems likely that it will be skewed a little to the right.

 

In sum, go out and burn your flag while you still have the chance. It might be illegal in the morning...

 

MILTON (The only good constitutionalist is buried in Arlington.)

[angelofdeath]

milton, correct me if Im wrong, but didnt scalia, vote that flag burning was constitutionally protected?

[Milton]

That was Texas v. Johnson. he did join the majority, which is odd. Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Stevens of all people dissented.

[gasfacevictm]

Originally posted by KING BLING@Nov 14 2005, 10:04 PM

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...

Quoted post

 

 

true to a point but yet contradictive. it is a crime to wilfully give some one a disease, virus, etc...if in fact you knew you had it before you passed it to them. so how is that different? if someone has aids/hiv and knows it. then wilfully gives it to someone, you best believe i'd make sure they rotted in jail for the rest of their short life and or kill that motherfucker.