Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Why would Latinos worry about deportation. Why would their experience count?
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/conten...eat-depression |
Quote:
About what happened, sure. Directed at everyone who disagrees with him? It shows precisely why it's a bad idea to let traumatized children shape public policy. "The pushback isn't because he swore in an interview, it's because some see him as a threat" Nobody sees him as a threat, just an annoyance, a profane, vulgar annoyance. I feel horrible for him, the lefty media is using him as a sock puppet, and he's buying into it hook, line and sinker, he thinks he's Rosa Parks. When they no longer have any use for him and they cast him off, he may not handle it well. No one seems to be looking out for his long term interests. |
Quote:
According to Spence, if you are critical of something a liberal said or did, you are necessarily taking it out of context. The biggest cop -ut in the world, from people who are literally incapable of being self-critical, is that you took it out of context. It's a useless defense. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Of course those who think that they have the only definition allowable have concerns, but things average out just like the weather. My concern is that the far reaches of politics on both sides have an inordinate amount of power. I think there are several reasons for this, our electoral process and the effect of the media at a minimum. The extremists on both sides should have an effect but it should be moderated by the moderate politicians in the middle. I compare the federal government to a giant sphere rolling along, for most of our government's existence it was pushed along by the people in the middle and it's path was altered to left and right by people pushing from the sides. We seem to now have reached a time where everyone has moved to the left or right and few are left to push us along. |
Quote:
In school? From your family members that we removed? Knowledge and experience count, if it did not Judging could be done by a machine. |
Quote:
Knowledge and experience in fixing machines have nothing to do with being Mexican. Knowledge of constitutional law is relevant to being a SCOTUS Judge. Being Mexican has nothing to do with it. Again, what is your point? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one. One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution. |
Quote:
Do you know what a blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automaton is? |
Quote:
That was:easy: |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And the time which we have now reached is one in which we are divided by classical views and post modern ones--the classic view being that there is objective reality, and the post modern view that realities are merely fictions or social constructs. Our Progressive jurists are closer to the post modern view than to the classical, and the Originalists, vice versa. That is one of the reasons that the Constitution, for a Progressive, is a fiction to be molded into whatever the current social constructs decree. |
Quote:
The sphere is not a physical sphere but a description of how our society moves and changes and apparently too hard to comprehend. "That by whatever name you call the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law, they are both important. That while the Constitution is a largely static document, it can change thru amendment and interpretation. The interpretation part is controlled politically by the appointment of Judges for life so that a political party gets to choose and it has a long term effect but not a permanent one. One may choose to select Originalist appointees or Living Constitutionalists, but neither is prohibited or required by the Constitution." |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
blind, thoughtless, brainwashed, automatons Was that comment another But Hillary? Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
Quote:
metaphorical spheres..some good some evil...moderately extreme...push me pull you.... must be a good perscription |
Quote:
|
Quote:
And what does the quote you will stick with mean by "the two sides of the argument about Constitutional Law" and that both are important? Important in what way? There are more than two Progressive methodologies taught and used by Justices to "interpret" constitutional cases. e.g., Monumentalism, Instrumentalism, Realism, Formalism, Cognitive Jurisprudence, Universal Principal of Fairness, Rule According to Higher Law, Preferred Freedom (or Selective Rights Jurisprudence), Utilitarian Jurisprudence, Positivist Jurisprudence, Sociological Jurisprudence, among others such as strict scrutiny, etc. These are mostly concocted ways to skirt constitutional text and deliver verdicts that could not otherwise be found in the structure of the Constitution and are means which are not bound by any form of originalism or strict constructionism. This is especially true in cases which test actual articles in the Constitution. In cases needing decision on statute law, there is a little more leeway since many statutes are not as strictly written as is the Constitution. I assume your quote is lumping all forms of "originalism" into one "Originalist side" in which change can only be made by amendment, and all of the Progressive concoctions lumped into a loose construction, a "Living Constitutionalist side" in which change can also be made by "interpretation." The writers of the Constitution did not conceive of constitutional text being changed by interpretation. Text was only to be changed (replaced) by amendment. "Interpretation" was to be the application of the text to the facts of the case. "Interpretation" that changed the meaning of the text in order to arrive at a decision not grounded in the original text is obviously not an application of the text but actually a rewriting of it. This sort of "interpretation" does not create a "Living Constitution." It leads to a "dead" one. It creates a new unwritten constitution that replaces the written one which no longer applies since the text is completely malleable and therefor meaningless. The "Living Constitution" nullifies written text and adjudicates instead by unbounded and unprescribed judicial opinion. The Living Constitution, in effect, is not a document, it is the constant mill of personal opinions cranked out by the majority of the SCOTUS jurists. And how are both "sides" important? The "originalist" side of the argument secures unalienable individual rights and liberties which can only be abridged by the representative vote of those individuals. The "Living Constitution" side guaranties no individual rights but secures to government the ability through its Court the power to decide what rights individuals and collectives have |
Quote:
this is akin to Spence taking the exact wording of a statement and claiming that "taken in context"....those words mean or were intended to mean something completely different than what was actually stated....I've lost count of how many times he's attempted this....it's all about arriving at a desired conclusion...who needs Google or a Constitution when you can just make it up as you go along :huh: |
Jonah G was praising retired Justice Stevens yesterday for at least having the audacity to be honest.....something that has been rare in the debate where the left has spent considerable time mocking and attacking 2A advocates for "unfounded fears" that the left would like to make significant changes to the Rights of Americans where guns are concerned...Wayne inferred and all but admitted his best "solution" recently but I couldn't quite get him to step out of the shadow...
"Stevens’s argument cuts through all of the fictions and double-talk and says plainly what millions of Americans and lots of politicians and journalists truly believe: Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t be able to buy guns easily, or at all, if it makes it easier or even possible for non-law-abiding citizens to get their hands on them. But there’s another reason I applaud Stevens’s position. He seeks to change the meaning of the Constitution the way the Founders intended: through the amendment process. For more than a century, progressives have argued that the Constitution should be seen as a “living and breathing document,” in the words of Al Gore and countless others. What they usually mean is that judges and justices should be free to discern in its text new rights that progressives like, from the right to privacy to the unfettered right to abortion. One needn’t be absolutist about this. I do think we have a right to privacy, because I think you can find that right implicit in the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, among other places. What is ridiculous and despotic is when courts radically reinterpret the text to conform to contemporary norms or fads. Often, when I rail against the “living” Constitution, someone will say to me, “If the Constitution didn’t change, we would still have slavery,” or, “Women wouldn’t be allowed to vote.” That’s true. But those changes weren’t the product of a living, breathing Constitution. They were the result of constitutional amendments, which are as valid and binding as the original text." those progressives are a sneaky bunch...never take your eyes off of them :shocked: |
Oops!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com