If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Justice Scalia: It is easy to make the right decision on the Supreme Court if you invent your own reality   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 212
    More: Asinine, Scalia, supreme courts, federal benefits, 38th state, United States federal courts, left-wing politics, Chief Justice John Roberts, abortions  
•       •       •

9514 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Oct 2012 at 11:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



212 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-05 12:14:57 PM  
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than Antonin Scalia.

The soft racism of low expectations.
 
2012-10-05 12:15:18 PM  

WorldCitizen:

We're dead as a species then. If every individual has the right to a biological weapon that an wipe out all of humanity, it will be used by one out of the 310,000,000 people in the US. It only takes one to end it all. Any of the crazed shooters who just want to take out as many people as possible we've had armed with a biological weapon is the end of it all. Constitution: not a suicide pact for all of humanity.


look at it this way - technology is outpacing the law at an ever increasingly rapid pace. so while creating personal nuclear weapons probably won't ever be a realistic option....genetic engineering and infotech systems could put a new class of 'weapons of mass destruction' into the hands of small groups or even dedicated individuals at some point in the semi-near future. But the law would call that illegal-ish (the courts suffer from serious lag), so you kinda/sorta get to be technically correct about that point.

I actually get a kick out of our legislature and court systems as they desperately try to keep up with technology. By the time they make a decision, technology has already moved past using what it was they made a ruling on in the first place.
 
2012-10-05 12:15:49 PM  
I wish he would die already. and in the next month. that's a good question. lets say Romney wins, and a justice dies between November and the swearing in, who names the new justice?
 
2012-10-05 12:16:17 PM  

JustTheTip: Only if they're part of the "well-regulated militia," which is to say, the National Guard. It's funny to see how these guys cherry-pick the parts of the Constitution that they are going to get all literal about.

The Founders never imagined a standing army; they imagined each state would have a militia that showed up for drill with their own firearms. During a time of war the Feds would nationalize the state militias.

It's all right there in the Constitution, but since that's not what today's gun-fetishists want to believe, it's conveniently ignored.


Only if you assume that the Founders were illiterate boobs who couldn't properly string two clauses together. It also requires that you ignore the Federalist Papers, as well as the historical context of what had happened 10 years earlier.
 
2012-10-05 12:18:53 PM  

WorldCitizen: And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.


You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!

i50.tinypic.com

/check please
 
2012-10-05 12:22:58 PM  

Brother_Mouzone: I wish he would die already. and in the next month. that's a good question. lets say Romney wins, and a justice dies between November and the swearing in, who names the new justice?


In the modern political world, it would most likely wait until a new person was in office.
 
2012-10-05 12:26:39 PM  
Let's not miss this part which I may have a quibble with, but also contains a lot of truth.

FTFA:
As he has said many times before, the justice said the people should turn to their elected lawmakers, not judges, to advocate for abortion rights or an end to the death penalty. Or they should try to change the Constitution, although Scalia said the Constitution makes changing it too hard by requiring 38 states to ratify an amendment for it to take effect.

"It is very difficult to adopt a constitutional amendment," Scalia said. He once calculated that less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, residing in the 13 least populous states, could stop an amendment, he said.
 
2012-10-05 12:28:52 PM  
Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.

I know that I'm perhaps being a bit of a pedant, but even if one says that the "states" were created in 1776, there were 18 states that had removed sodomy laws by 1976, some as early as 1962, though some quickly reinstated them.
 
2012-10-05 12:28:57 PM  

WorldCitizen: edmo: So it doesn't prevent restrictions on abortion.
So it doesn't prevent restrictions on capital punishment.
So it doesn't prevent restrictions on homosexual sodomy. oops
So it doesn't prevent restrictions on restrictions on homosexual sodomy.

That's a pretty solid case there judge.Seems legit.

He's one of the people those Founders who were against a bill of rights feared. They feared some idiots would come along some day and say if a right wasn't included in the list, the idiots would think the Constitution didn't grant that right if it otherwise didn't list it has prohibited. Well, Scalia proved them right.


The Bill of Rights doees't grant rights to the citizens of this country. It limits the powers of the Federal Government.
 
2012-10-05 12:29:07 PM  
The Constitution makes no mention of killing people and yet prevents the government from placing restrictions on owning weapon. Clearly, our Founding Fathers want us to shoot each other whenever and where ever.
 
2012-10-05 12:30:09 PM  

Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I'd happily argue that.

We're dead as a species then. If every individual has the right to a biological weapon that an wipe out all of humanity, it will be used by one out of the 310,000,000 people in the US. It only takes one to end it all. Any of the crazed shooters who just want to take out as many people as possible we've had armed with a biological weapon is the end of it all. Constitution: not a suicide pact for all of humanity.

So you're arguing that we should explicitly disregard the Constitution, as we shouldn't be bound to "a suicide pact for all of humanity"? Perhaps so, but that wasn't the question you originally asked - whether the 2nd amendment protects the right of citizens to keep nuclear arms. Certainly it does.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment gives you no right to use those arms. Certainly using a biological weapon to end it all is mass-murder at a minimum. You're not arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own handguns, for example, yet that doesn't mean that people have the right to shoot up a school. Clearly, the Constitution is not a "suicide pact" for victims of such shootings that needs to be disregarded, right?
Finally, if someone is going to use a biological weapon to wipe out all of humanity, do you think the existence or non-existence of a piece of paper is going to aid or hinder them either way? Like there's someone out there right now who would be setting off a nuke in L.A., but for the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't come aroun ...


Well, it might very well be open to that interpretation. I'm still bothered by our total disregard for the meaning behind the first half of the Amendment which seems to nearly always be completely ignored for context.

It could be argued that we all have the right to keep arms of all kinds including hydrogen bombs. So far, we have not interpreted it that way as we place all kinds of limits on what types of arms are allowed. So far we've said, sure, you're allowed to bear arms, but that does not mean any kind of arms imaginable. That might or might not be disregarding the Constitution. It might just be interpretation. Otherwise, the Air Force is clearly unconstitutional.
 
2012-10-05 12:32:16 PM  

Weaver95: Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

and cannabis would be legal. hey, half the gotdamn founding fathers grew hemp on their plantations.


And there'd be little to know immigration laws and open borders!
 
2012-10-05 12:35:49 PM  
Little to no*

Although little to know kinda works too.
 
2012-10-05 12:36:24 PM  
" ...`or else it's based on information from someone who has violated his oath of confidentiality, that is to say, a non-reliable source."

Faulty logic for a Justice.

Just because you might not let him babysit your kids doesn't make him a liar.
 
2012-10-05 12:38:38 PM  

Theaetetus: Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I'd happily argue that.


Ambitwistor: You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!

[i50.tinypic.com image 467x348]

/check please


ytrewq.com
 
2012-10-05 12:39:49 PM  

WorldCitizen: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Because People in power are Stupid: By his own arguments the 2nd amendment only pertains to antiquated black powder rifles.

Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

I'd happily argue that.

We're dead as a species then. If every individual has the right to a biological weapon that an wipe out all of humanity, it will be used by one out of the 310,000,000 people in the US. It only takes one to end it all. Any of the crazed shooters who just want to take out as many people as possible we've had armed with a biological weapon is the end of it all. Constitution: not a suicide pact for all of humanity.

So you're arguing that we should explicitly disregard the Constitution, as we shouldn't be bound to "a suicide pact for all of humanity"? Perhaps so, but that wasn't the question you originally asked - whether the 2nd amendment protects the right of citizens to keep nuclear arms. Certainly it does.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment gives you no right to use those arms. Certainly using a biological weapon to end it all is mass-murder at a minimum. You're not arguing that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to own handguns, for example, yet that doesn't mean that people have the right to shoot up a school. Clearly, the Constitution is not a "suicide pact" for victims of such shootings that needs to be disregarded, right?
Finally, if someone is going to use a biological weapon to wipe out all of humanity, do you think the existence or non-existence of a piece of paper is going to aid or hinder them either way? Like there's someone out there right now who would be setting off a nuke in L.A., but for the fact that the Supreme Court hasn't ...


People aren't ignoring the first half of the Second Amendment. It is clearly, obviously, and quite verifiably there for context. Saying it is for the right for you to bear arms as a part of a militia is ignoring context. Read the federalist papers and the multitude of quotes from the founding fathers that explicitly describe their thoughts on the importance of the individual ownership of arms.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"... the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ..."
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that ... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; ... "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824. ME 16:45.

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers at 184-8
 
2012-10-05 12:40:14 PM  
Also easy cases? Deciding innocent people should be executed.
 
2012-10-05 12:44:05 PM  

WorldCitizen: Well, it might very well be open to that interpretation. I'm still bothered by our total disregard for the meaning behind the first half of the Amendment which seems to nearly always be completely ignored for context.


Actually, I think it's the other way around... People try to interpret the first clause in a way consistent with our current understanding of the terms to limit the second clause, while disregarding the context of it in the late 1700s. It's not their fault, though - the clause obfuscates the purpose, because it's tiptoeing around the inherent contradiction of enabling revolution against the government in a document establishing the government: rebellion is treason, and cannot be protected by the Constitution... but the right to bear arms is necessary as a deterrent against a tyrannical government - i.e. necessary to secure a free state.

It could be argued that we all have the right to keep arms of all kinds including hydrogen bombs. So far, we have not interpreted it that way as we place all kinds of limits on what types of arms are allowed. So far we've said, sure, you're allowed to bear arms, but that does not mean any kind of arms imaginable. That might or might not be disregarding the Constitution. It might just be interpretation. Otherwise, the Air Force is clearly unconstitutional.

That doesn't follow. You're saying that because we place limits on ownership of arms, contrary to the second amendment, therefore Congress lacks power under Article I to implement an Air Force? Forgive me, but you sound as if you heard the "air force is unconstitutional" argument once before and never really understood what it meant or even what parts of the Constitution would be relevant to such an argument.
 
2012-10-05 12:44:33 PM  
I think people need to give his arguments a little more credit. The Constitution was largely written over 200 years ago. Just because people's minds have changed about what individuals should have a right to do or not do doesn't mean that the meaning of the Constitution changes also. The idea that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution change over time means that we have nine unelected people with life tenure who get to decide how far common notions about privacy, sex, and family have changed and thus create laws that govern 300,000,000 people.

He is NOT saying that consensual sodomy and abortion should be illegal. What he is saying is that the Constitution doesn't require that these things be legal. And if people want them to be legal, then we have 50 little republics across this land in which the citizens of each republic can elect leaders who will draft laws that reflect what they want. The idea that the Supreme Court can just create new rights by fiat is both undemocratic and is anathema to local and state democracy (people don't get involved in state and local politics to protect their rights because they know that it's easier just to go through the courts). And maybe if there was more participate in state and local democracy--especially liberal participation--we'd have more people in place that would work to solve issues like police corruption and low-quality public schools. But because state and local governments have very little direct impact on our lives (in part because the Supreme Court has usurped many of their policy making functions), no on gets involved.

I'm not saying he's right (and we all know he's not consistent in applying his viewpoint). But I am saying that if people gave his point of view a little credit they might actually think about these issues and have better things to say in response.
 
2012-10-05 12:46:25 PM  

Ambitwistor: You can't hug your children with nuclear arms!


www.dekaresearch.com
... yet.
 
2012-10-05 12:49:54 PM  

hartzdog: I think people need to give his arguments a little more credit. The Constitution was largely written over 200 years ago. Just because people's minds have changed about what individuals should have a right to do or not do doesn't mean that the meaning of the Constitution changes also.


Assuming for the sake of argument that your point is true, how do you reconcile this with the ninth amendment, which notes that there are many more rights not explicitly enumerated, and which would therefore be later listed and understood through judicial interpretation, such as the fundamental rights of marriage, privacy, bodily autonomy, etc.?
 
2012-10-05 12:50:24 PM  

WorldCitizen: He's one of the people those Founders who were against a bill of rights feared. They feared some idiots would come along some day and say if a right wasn't included in the list, the idiots would think the Constitution didn't grant that right if it otherwise didn't list it has prohibited. Well, Scalia proved them right.


THIS.

Aparantly hizzoner never got all the way down to Amendments 9 and 10. He can also twist the definition of words beyond all recognition.

Can't wait until this asshole drops dead. I just hope there's a Democrat in office when he does.
 
2012-10-05 12:51:32 PM  

hartzdog: I think people need to give his arguments a little more credit. The Constitution was largely written over 200 years ago. Just because people's minds have changed about what individuals should have a right to do or not do doesn't mean that the meaning of the Constitution changes also. The idea that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution change over time means that we have nine unelected people with life tenure who get to decide how far common notions about privacy, sex, and family have changed and thus create laws that govern 300,000,000 people.

He is NOT saying that consensual sodomy and abortion should be illegal. What he is saying is that the Constitution doesn't require that these things be legal. And if people want them to be legal, then we have 50 little republics across this land in which the citizens of each republic can elect leaders who will draft laws that reflect what they want. The idea that the Supreme Court can just create new rights by fiat is both undemocratic and is anathema to local and state democracy (people don't get involved in state and local politics to protect their rights because they know that it's easier just to go through the courts). And maybe if there was more participate in state and local democracy--especially liberal participation--we'd have more people in place that would work to solve issues like police corruption and low-quality public schools. But because state and local governments have very little direct impact on our lives (in part because the Supreme Court has usurped many of their policy making functions), no on gets involved.

I'm not saying he's right (and we all know he's not consistent in applying his viewpoint). But I am saying that if people gave his point of view a little credit they might actually think about these issues and have better things to say in response.


But this common sense approach that you discuss above would not fit the liberal narrative that Scalia is a crazy lunatic who means to hurt everyone and is evil to the core.
 
2012-10-05 12:53:26 PM  

WorldCitizen: Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.


By the common definition at the time the 2A was written, "arms" are guns a single person can carry. Grenades (bombs you can carry) and cannon (guns you can't carry) were called "ordinance".
 
2012-10-05 12:55:48 PM  
So the guy who rails against the concept of referring to legislative history and discussions of the potential meanings and impacts of bills on the floor of the House and Senate as "meaningless because it's not written into the actual text of the law" decides that it's up to him to interpret the true meaning of the writers of the Constitution based on ....... historical context?

He always was full of shiat, but his emperor's clothes are doing a poorer job of covering that than they used to.
 
2012-10-05 12:57:05 PM  

hartzdog: What he is saying is that the Constitution doesn't require that these things be legal


And that is where he is wrong.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just because it isn't an ENUMERATED right doesn't mean it isn't a PROTECTED right, Jackass.
 
2012-10-05 12:57:21 PM  

Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Well, it might very well be open to that interpretation. I'm still bothered by our total disregard for the meaning behind the first half of the Amendment which seems to nearly always be completely ignored for context.

Actually, I think it's the other way around... People try to interpret the first clause in a way consistent with our current understanding of the terms to limit the second clause, while disregarding the context of it in the late 1700s. It's not their fault, though - the clause obfuscates the purpose, because it's tiptoeing around the inherent contradiction of enabling revolution against the government in a document establishing the government: rebellion is treason, and cannot be protected by the Constitution... but the right to bear arms is necessary as a deterrent against a tyrannical government - i.e. necessary to secure a free state.

It could be argued that we all have the right to keep arms of all kinds including hydrogen bombs. So far, we have not interpreted it that way as we place all kinds of limits on what types of arms are allowed. So far we've said, sure, you're allowed to bear arms, but that does not mean any kind of arms imaginable. That might or might not be disregarding the Constitution. It might just be interpretation. Otherwise, the Air Force is clearly unconstitutional.

That doesn't follow. You're saying that because we place limits on ownership of arms, contrary to the second amendment, therefore Congress lacks power under Article I to implement an Air Force? Forgive me, but you sound as if you heard the "air force is unconstitutional" argument once before and never really understood what it meant or even what parts of the Constitution would be relevant to such an argument.


No, I'm saying, the Constitution is open to interpretation (or else we would have an extremely minimalist federal government, which we don't). So, either it's flexible and we have an Air Force and the ability to interpret "the right to bear arms" to mean, yes, but no unlimited TYPES of arms or it's not open to interpretation and we have an individual right to nukes and no Air Force. So far as a society, we've gone very much down the it's a flexible document open to interpretation route.

And I've said this in other threads, I don't worship at the alter of the Constitution. I believe in rights. Where they fall in line with the Constitution, I will damn well expect the government to enforce their existence. Where they don't fall in line with the Constitution, or at least some judges interpretation of it, I will support change in whatever context that comes.

Things I believe in firmly regardless of whether or not the Constitution seems to support:

Right to free speech/thought.
Right to freedom of religion (or lack of religion)
Right to be free from physical or property harm
Right to control what goes in and comes out of your own body (including the decision to end the life of that body).
Equality before the law for all people.

So, the only alter I worship at is one where those rights burn bright, and I believe in them for all of humanity and not just my tribe.
 
2012-10-05 12:59:14 PM  
Tell me again how someone gets a fair hearing before Scalia. Basically he's now on record as saying he's decided the case before he hears it. The Constitution was a great compromise. The Founding fathers, however you want to define them, were not all of one mind. many were on the cutting edge of philosophy at the time and who knows their positions on the issues of today in today's world. Oh that's right. Scalia knows.
 
2012-10-05 01:01:05 PM  

clyph: WorldCitizen: Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

By the common definition at the time the 2A was written, "arms" are guns a single person can carry. Grenades (bombs you can carry) and cannon (guns you can't carry) were called "ordinance".


[citation needed, specifically because other citations disagree with you]

The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
 
2012-10-05 01:03:00 PM  

Theaetetus: arms are just about anything.


+1
 
2012-10-05 01:04:53 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yet another article of him openly declaring he decides verdicts prior to actually hearing cases, and nobody seems to care.


This...
 
2012-10-05 01:04:57 PM  

WorldCitizen: No, I'm saying, the Constitution is open to interpretation (or else we would have an extremely minimalist federal government, which we don't). So, either it's flexible and we have an Air Force and the ability to interpret "the right to bear arms" to mean, yes, but no unlimited TYPES of arms or it's not open to interpretation and we have an individual right to nukes and no Air Force. So far as a society, we've gone very much down the it's a flexible document open to interpretation route.


Again, that makes no sense and it sounds like someone who has never read the Constitution or understood where the argument about the air force's constitutionality comes from. It's the difference between describing the scope of an enumerated power in Article 1, and describing the scope of a constitutionally guaranteed right. There's no requirement that both scopes be read in exactly the same way, with the same jurisprudence.

Further, the argument is incorrect anyway, as it disregards the Necessary and Proper clause.
 
2012-10-05 01:06:18 PM  

WorldCitizen: Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.


Well, since none of those things were invented yet. You also can't "bear" a nuclear weapon because it would be a little too heavy. Also lacking were the randomly violent snipers. But hey, we're only considering what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution.

You see this is one way to reduce the Constitution to some inoperable piece of paper, which is what this Supreme Court Justice actually wants -because then he can interpret it anyway he wants.
 
2012-10-05 01:06:51 PM  

WorldCitizen: Things I believe in firmly regardless of whether or not the Constitution seems to support:

Right to free speech/thought.


Do you believe in an inalienable right to defame someone? If so, how is that consistent with:
Right to be free from physical or property harm
 
2012-10-05 01:09:05 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: You also can't "bear" a nuclear weapon because it would be a little too heavy.


(a) what about a suitcase nuke?
(b) if that was a true limitation, what about cannons, which were certainly privately owned in the 18th century?
 
2012-10-05 01:09:32 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We need a Constitutional amendment ending lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court


I'm not sure this is such a great idea, but I could be convinced otherwise. Here are two reasons why I think it's bad; both related to after-service employment.

1. If they were term limited, they could be more easily swayed by corporations to rule in their favor due to backroom deals for future jobs. This is a problem in Congress now when someone leave to be CEO of a company or a big time lobbyist. I suppose it could be argue that corporations sway them anyway, but it could potentially be much worse.

2. On a similar note, where would they work, what would they do afterwards? I can't imagine they would go back to being a "regular" judge or lawyer; or whatever other profession they came from.

Ultimately, setting them up for life gives them free reign to make up their own mind and not be swayed by outside influence. There are example in the past (citation needed.jpg) of traditionally liberal/conservative justices moving towards the center or switching sides completely once they were on the high court.
 
2012-10-05 01:10:03 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: WorldCitizen: Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

Of course, if you took the Constitution very literally, it does just say arms. Nuclear arms? Chemical arms? Biological arms? And I do remember at least one Farker arguing that in fact, based on the 2nd Amendment, Americans have the right to bear nuclear arms.

Well, since none of those things were invented yet. You also can't "bear" a nuclear weapon because it would be a little too heavy. Also lacking were the randomly violent snipers. But hey, we're only considering what they were thinking when they wrote the Constitution.

You see this is one way to reduce the Constitution to some inoperable piece of paper, which is what this Supreme Court Justice actually wants -because then he can interpret it anyway he wants.


Suitcase nukes?

Pretty sure you can carry around an spray can of biological or chemical arms.
 
2012-10-05 01:11:09 PM  

clyph: WorldCitizen: Well, it says "arms" not guns. So maybe some cannons as well.

By the common definition at the time the 2A was written, "arms" are guns a single person can carry. Grenades (bombs you can carry) and cannon (guns you can't carry) were called "ordinance".


"Ordnance". No 'I'. One means "a law or rule", the other means "heavy or explosive weaponry".

// there was a funny conversation in the Dreidel household when your humble doctor was but a small boy:
// my older brother, thumbing through a DC tourism guide, asked the folks if we could go to the Ordnance Museum
// I asked what the point was of going to a museum about laws, while my folks demurred (I think we were heading to Baltimore for something that day)
// so my brother asks: "Can we just go to the gift shop, then?"
 
2012-10-05 01:23:00 PM  

Zeb Hesselgresser: I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than Antonin Scalia.

The soft racism of low expectations.


A pocket calculator with an alarm clock hooked up to it would reach a better conclusion than Antonin Scalia most of the time.
 
2012-10-05 01:31:44 PM  

Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Things I believe in firmly regardless of whether or not the Constitution seems to support:

Right to free speech/thought.

Do you believe in an inalienable right to defame someone? If so, how is that consistent with:
Right to be free from physical or property harm


Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me...
 
2012-10-05 01:35:29 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We need a Constitutional amendment ending lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court


And the beauty is the states can do it without needing Congress.
 
2012-10-05 01:38:12 PM  
Either you believe the constitution is a social contract, or you believe it's a license for an unelected elite to impose their vision of a just society on the rest of us.

If, like Scalia, you believe the constitution is a social contract, then you interpret it like a contract. You look to the intent of the people who framed and ratified that contract. And if you want to change the original understanding of the contract, then you go through the process spelled out in the contract for doing that.

Whether you think it is right or wrong, Scalia's position has the benefit of being principled. It is consistent with the long history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. It is based on an objective standard.

If, as most modern day liberals do, you believe the constitution is a license for an unelected elite to impose their vision of society on the rest of us, you have some problems.

First, that position has no principle behind it. If that unelected elite decide that it's ok to take your guns away, or to allow the police to search your house without a warrant, or to prohibit internet news sites, or that the people who post on such sites should be rounded up, put in concentration camps, and shot, what right do you have to complain?

Second, if you believe that the constitution is a social contract, what obliges you (other than the fear of the application of force) to pay the slightest attention to the pronouncements of the elite? The answer is quite simple: none.
 
2012-10-05 01:41:04 PM  

Wally007: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Things I believe in firmly regardless of whether or not the Constitution seems to support:

Right to free speech/thought.

Do you believe in an inalienable right to defame someone? If so, how is that consistent with:
Right to be free from physical or property harm

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me...


I think you have a right to say anything. If in civil court someone can prove that you words caused harm to your property, then perhaps you have a good civil case against someone for what they said. But not criminal.
 
2012-10-05 01:42:12 PM  
Trollmitter,

Thats not what he said. He said that he reads the Constituion to mean what it meant to the people who wrote it.

Its actually very simple. There is a group of people in country who want to ditch the constitution because it gets in the of the way of "social justice " (aka communal redistribution) so they ridicule it; declare it obsolete, and try to undermine its language any way they cab.

Then there are people who read it according to its actual meaning like Scalia.
 
2012-10-05 01:45:28 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: Homosexual sodomy? Come on. For 200 years, it was criminal in every state," Scalia said at the American Enterprise Institute.

I know that I'm perhaps being a bit of a pedant, but even if one says that the "states" were created in 1776, there were 18 states that had removed sodomy laws by 1976, some as early as 1962, though some quickly reinstated them.


IIRC, sodomy laws also cover just about any sex act beyond missionary style with the lights off. Heterosexual oral sex is considered "sodomy" in some states.

Also, even if you are being a pedant, you're absolutely correct.
 
2012-10-05 01:46:23 PM  

WorldCitizen: Wally007: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Things I believe in firmly regardless of whether or not the Constitution seems to support:

Right to free speech/thought.

Do you believe in an inalienable right to defame someone? If so, how is that consistent with:
Right to be free from physical or property harm

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me...

I think you have a right to say anything. If in civil court someone can prove that you words caused harm to your property, then perhaps you have a good civil case against someone for what they said. But not criminal.


So, in other words, you believe in a right to freedom from criminal penalty for speech/thought, yes? A little narrower than your previous statement, but I think it's reasonable.

... but wait, what if you threaten someone? What about false reporting of a crime to get someone else in trouble? What about fraud, perjury, blackmail, etc.? And what if the person is broke and your civil case against them would be useless?
 
2012-10-05 01:49:38 PM  

wisewerds: If, like Scalia, you believe the constitution is a social contract, then you interpret it like a contract. You look to the intent of the people who framed and ratified that contract. And if you want to change the original understanding of the contract, then you go through the process spelled out in the contract for doing that.

Whether you think it is right or wrong, Scalia's position has the benefit of being principled.


... only if you disregard the existence of the ninth amendment. If your "contract" states "subsequent mutual understandings of the parties may be taken into consideration when defining terms or practices under this contract," then one would be unprincipled to focus only on the four corners of the document. Scalia's position is inherently inconsistent, as he does not give the ninth amendment any meaning, while insisting that all words in the Constitution ought to be given meaning.
 
2012-10-05 01:50:14 PM  

wisewerds: Whether you think it is right or wrong, Scalia's position has the benefit of being principled. It is consistent with the long history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. It is based on an objective standard.


So what part of the US Constitution grants citizens' rights to corporations and similar nebulous entities?
 
2012-10-05 01:51:55 PM  

serial_crusher: The whole point of the 2nd amendment is that citizens can take up arms against the government if it becomes oppressive like the British or Republicans did, right?


No, not right. The opposite of right, in fact. One of the bigger motivations for the 2nd amendment was so that the people would be armed and readily available to put down an attempted overthrow of the government.

/I thought this was commonly understood.
 
2012-10-05 01:51:59 PM  

Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Wally007: Theaetetus: WorldCitizen: Things I believe in firmly regardless of whether or not the Constitution seems to support:

Right to free speech/thought.

Do you believe in an inalienable right to defame someone? If so, how is that consistent with:
Right to be free from physical or property harm

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names shall never hurt me...

I think you have a right to say anything. If in civil court someone can prove that you words caused harm to your property, then perhaps you have a good civil case against someone for what they said. But not criminal.

So, in other words, you believe in a right to freedom from criminal penalty for speech/thought, yes? A little narrower than your previous statement, but I think it's reasonable.

... but wait, what if you threaten someone? What about false reporting of a crime to get someone else in trouble? What about fraud, perjury, blackmail, etc.? And what if the person is broke and your civil case against them would be useless?


Well, freedoms and rights do bump into each other, yes. I think you're trying to paint me into some absolutist who believes everything in life is black or white, I'm not. Life is not. Saying I believe in freedom of speech does not mean that there are not cases where freedom of speech ends at the right of another to be free from physical harm. If you are threatening to kill someone or cause them harm, then your freedom of speech is ending at their right to be free from physical harm. So yes, you can play this game. I can continue to broaden my thoughts from the simple outline listed above to the more nuanced version if you would like me to shine light into the gray areas. Next?
 
Displayed 50 of 212 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report