Lanadapter: @NateGrey: Good thing the new healthcare law went into effect so he can see a doctor about that problem.
bujin: So we can't ever look at decisions differently because of advances in technology or society?
PanicMan: He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping."That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."You horse's ass!
DamnYankees: But torture is still ok, right?
Muta: DamnYankees: But torture is still ok, right?Only if the torture is either cruel or unusual. If it is both cruel AND unusual then it is forbidden by the Constitution. The Founding Fathers intended torture to be the norm that way it couldn't be labeled 'unusual' by liberals.
KellyX: Heard this ass clown this morning... He believes that the idea of 1 person, 1 vote is not constitutional... He almost got caught in saying that women shouldn't have the right to vote too.
farkityfarker: Supreme Court justices should be appointed for limited terms, like 4 or 5 years, that can be renewed, not for life.
bgilmore5: His philosophy is flawed. You cannot know what the original intent was without the bias of your opinion getting in the way. First of all, who do you look to to find original intent? The authors? The collective body of those at the Constitutional Convention? The representatives at the state level that ratified the document? You could never come to a consensus unless you cherry pick what makes you opinion valid. It's simply a philosophy of convenience.
I asked Scalia about what, in his book, he calls the "cardinal principle" of statutory construction: "As between two possible interpretations of a statute ... our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the act."
RyogaM: Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.
Muta: PanicMan: He believes the court was similarly wrong in barring warrantless wiretapping."That's simply contrary to the text of the Fourth Amendment, which never protected privacy in some broad sense," he said. "It's very specific [in barring unreasonable searches only of] persons, houses, papers and effects."You horse's ass!I would think a strict Constitutionalist would categorize the electrical impulses over a phone line created by the sound of someone's voice as 'effects'.
bujin: So we can't ever look at decisions differently because of advances in technology or society? This religious fixation on the Constitution is baffling to me.
featurecreep: I must be getting old. I heard this report on my ride in this morning and came away with a more favorable opinion of him than before (which isn't saying much) and look forward to reading his book.
bulldg4life: His continued use of strict constitutionalist to defend his rambling, inconsistent, partisan rulings is one of the great travesties of an unelected, lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.That he actually used reasoning that torture is ok but it isn't really punishment since the victims weren't convicted of a crime makes me sick to my stomach.
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 21 2017 09:14:16
Runtime: 0.233 sec (233 ms)