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.

(Think Progress)   And today's Constitutional Illiteracy Prize goes to ... *drumroll* ... Jim Bridenstine, Republican from Oklahoma. *applause* Come on down, Jim, and collect your priiiiiiize   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 143
    More: Dumbass, Jim Bridenstine, Republican, Oklahoma, Lilly Ledbetter, reproductive rights  
•       •       •

7545 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Mar 2013 at 7:35 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-03-13 04:30:27 PM
"Don't blame me, I'm just a Republican" *giggle*

thinkprogress.org
 
2013-03-13 04:32:30 PM
"Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway?  WTF makes them so special?"
 
2013-03-13 04:32:46 PM
I'd like to once again thank my maternal grandparents for having the sense to leave that sh*hole
 
2013-03-13 04:44:32 PM
When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.
 
2013-03-13 04:58:38 PM

PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.


Instead, it guarantees them election by the GOP for life.
 
2013-03-13 05:06:40 PM

PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.


In general, I like living in OKC, but our politicians keep getting dumber and more extreme. That's one of my biggest frustrations. That, and that people who I thought were intelligent keep electing these idiots.
 
2013-03-13 05:27:03 PM

GAT_00: PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

Instead, it guarantees them election by the GOP for life.


For today's high-flying conservatives, ignorance raises your profile above the rest. The more ignorant, the better. I'll bet this guy has Presidential ambitions.
 
2013-03-13 05:52:39 PM
don't these people take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution?  how can they uphold and defend something they didn't actually read or comprehend.
 
2013-03-13 05:53:55 PM

make me some tea: "Don't blame me, I'm just a Republican" *giggle*

[thinkprogress.org image 300x220]

xosports.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-13 06:16:45 PM
I remember a few Farkers arguing at the time that just because SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate, didn't mean it was Constitutional.  I'm always surprised when a politician is revealed to be as dumb as the dumbest posters on Fark.  Even thought I disagree with many Conservative Farkers, they do appear smarter, on average, than the people they vote for.
 
2013-03-13 06:39:36 PM
To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.
 
2013-03-13 06:39:45 PM
I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.
 
2013-03-13 06:41:23 PM

Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.


That must have been a dark day
 
2013-03-13 06:43:46 PM

Krymson Tyde: Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.


The summer Olympics in Beijing?
 
2013-03-13 06:51:23 PM

Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.


It's because the cancelled Better Off Ted, isn't it?  Pissed me off too
 
2013-03-13 06:52:32 PM

Torgo_of_Manos: It's because the cancelled Better Off Ted, isn't it?  Pissed me off too


I was happier a minute ago. Man I miss that show.
 
2013-03-13 07:06:06 PM

Cyberluddite: "Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway?  WTF makes them so special?"


See, I would be open to an intelligent discussion of whether Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.  SCOTUS deciding what is and isn't constitutional is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, so whether the case was wrongly decided could be debated.  But I'm guessing this guy does not know that, but rather is someone that says "Nuh uh!  You can't do that!" when a SCOTUS decision comes down that he doesn't like.
 
2013-03-13 07:08:53 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Cyberluddite: "Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway?  WTF makes them so special?"

See, I would be open to an intelligent discussion of whether Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.  SCOTUS deciding what is and isn't constitutional is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, so whether the case was wrongly decided could be debated.  But I'm guessing this guy does not know that, but rather is someone that says "Nuh uh!  You can't do that!" when a SCOTUS decision comes down that he doesn't like.


This tithead probably thinks Scalia is a liberal activist judge, too
 
2013-03-13 07:09:33 PM

 Solkar: PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

In general, I like living in OKC, but our politicians keep getting dumber and more extreme. That's one of my biggest frustrations. That, and that people who I thought were intelligent keep electing these idiots.


/the derp just keeps on coming and it's fueled by the fine upstanding "christian" people.
//Fine christian people...........when you hear that, watch your back and watch your wallet
 
2013-03-13 07:11:47 PM
FTA: BRIDENSTINE:Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional

Wow I never thought I'd read something that ignorant and stupid today...
You lost get over it and move on.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-03-13 07:14:08 PM

nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair


Pretty sure this tit didn't study it out that much.
 
2013-03-13 07:17:53 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Cyberluddite: "Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway?  WTF makes them so special?"

See, I would be open to an intelligent discussion of whether Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.  SCOTUS deciding what is and isn't constitutional is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, so whether the case was wrongly decided could be debated.  But I'm guessing this guy does not know that, but rather is someone that says "Nuh uh!  You can't do that!" when a SCOTUS decision comes down that he doesn't like.


Yeah, I thought maybe he was going for "judicial review technically isn't in the constitution."  But nope.
 
2013-03-13 07:18:08 PM

make me some tea: "Don't blame me, I'm just a Republican" *giggle*

[thinkprogress.org image 300x220]


I've never seen a more retarded-looking man.

Someone shoop "deep thoughts" into the picture, stat!
 
2013-03-13 07:29:34 PM
Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.
 
2013-03-13 07:42:19 PM
The idea that what is or isn't constitutional depends on the ideological makeup of the court is not incorrect. The problem is that he extends that idiocy later:

So what we have to do as a body of Congress is say, "look, just because the courts" - andI hear this all the time from Republicans - they say that the court is the arbitrator and after the arbitration is done, that's the rules we have to live under and we can go forth and make legislation given those rules. That's not the case. A perfect example if Obamacare. Obamacare is not constitutional, the individual mandate.

Yes, you do in fact have to go forth and make legislation given the parameters that the court has laid out, whether you agree with their decision or not. That is precisely how it works. "Welp, agree to disagree" does not override that particular bit of judicial oversight.
 
2013-03-13 07:43:28 PM
After accusing Democrats of "stacking the courts in their favor" - five of the current nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents

Wow. How many ways can you be wrong in one interview?


The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni Thomas, didn't have the heart to correct Bridenstine's peculiar view of the Court's role.

Yeah. Heart. That's the ticket.
 
2013-03-13 07:44:35 PM

mrshowrules: I remember a few Farkers arguing at the time that just because SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate, didn't mean it was Constitutional.  I'm always surprised when a politician is revealed to be as dumb as the dumbest posters on Fark.  Even thought I disagree with many Conservative Farkers, they do appear smarter, on average, than the people they vote for.


There are plenty of rulings that I don't believe stand up to constitutional scrutiny.  But the Supreme Court is the arbiter of that.  Someone has to be.  If we don't like a ruling, than the Congress needs top modify the relevant laws to pass constitutional muster, the ruling needs to be overturned by a future Court, or a constitutional amendment has to be passed.

Of course, this whole thing is particularly funny since Antonin Scalia recently essentially said that Congress doesn't have the power to legislate.
 
2013-03-13 07:44:37 PM

DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.


Seriously? "Area man passionate defender of what he thinks the constitution says" is satire"
 
2013-03-13 07:45:51 PM

DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.


Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

I'm willing to bet you that this interpretation is what Bridenstine meant and not your interpretation.
 
2013-03-13 07:46:41 PM

Doktor_Zhivago: FTA: BRIDENSTINE:Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional

Wow I never thought I'd read something that ignorant and stupid today...
You lost get over it and move on.
[i.imgur.com image 500x368]


/threadjackon
WTF are Spongebob and whoever the heck that is doing?? I get it's butthurt, but what are they holding?? (I hope it's obvious at this point that I'm not a Spongebob fan)
/threadjackoff

At least this answers some of what's wrong with the GOP; the only legitimate law-law is the one that they agree with.
 
2013-03-13 07:48:26 PM

nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.


Brown v. Board explicitly overturned the decision in Plessy, and therefore Plessy was specifically declared to be UNconstitutional. Obviously this subtlety is lost on many, as you point out. However, in a strictly legal sense, Plessy IS constitutional in both the subjective sense (the Supreme Court said so) and the objective sense: It's entirely possible to deconstruct the argument and see why the case law allowed the Court in Plessy to reach the decision it did. That is one of the perils of law: That it is entirely possible to look at it from one angle and make it come out one way, and from another angle and have it come out completely differently. Just like Citizens United, the case everyone thinks "should have" been so obviously decided the other way. Well, it was actually decided on quite logical 1st Amendment grounds that had nothing (imo) to do with the issue of corporate contributions but had everything to do with how the Court ruled.

But on a more practical level, it's exactly why the Court must be the final arbiter of what is Constitutional and what is not. Who else is there? Everyone thinks they know what the Constitution says and means, but vanishingly few really do, and fewer still understand the complicated caselaw behind it. Everyone may not always agree with the Supreme Court's rulings, but the discussion has to stop SOMEWHERE, someone has to draw a line and say "This is okay and this is not" and who else is there? You want Congress to decide? We'd never have any decisions made at all! Lower courts can't do it, there has to be some final board someplace to make an ultimate ruling. If the Court lately has gotten too political, then the Court needs overhauled; but the idea of a Supreme Court isn't a bad idea. Just the idiots ON the Court.
 
2013-03-13 07:49:15 PM
when the SC disagrees with your narrative, you regain control of the narrative by .... well, by saying outlandish shiat.
 
2013-03-13 07:50:55 PM

Peki: /threadjackon
WTF are Spongebob and whoever the heck that is doing?? I get it's butthurt, but what are they holding?? (I hope it's obvious at this point that I'm not a Spongebob fan)
/threadjackoff


Mr Krabbs said he'd take their butts if they got paint on his stuff.. and they did.. so they're crying for their soon to be gone butts.
it was water based paint the whole time LOLZ... I am a sad little man

Peki: At least this answers some of what's wrong with the GOP; the only legitimate law-law is the one that they agree with.


They're constitutional originalists.  Except for the amendments amendment they agree with.
 
2013-03-13 07:54:08 PM
Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.
 
2013-03-13 07:55:21 PM
That poor poor woman. Who forced her to interview that man?
 
2013-03-13 07:56:32 PM
A. This guy is a simpleton.

B. How the fark did he get elected?

C. Judges make their entire reputation on their interpretation of law as it appears on the books and how it can be applied.  These people were all former lawyers that based their ENTIRE living on a solid reputation.  They do not fark around with that rep.

These judges truly believe what they deliver in their decisions. They are required, by law, to explain their decisions to the public so we can be informed as to the "why" of the decision.  No other branch of government is required to do so.  Judges are regularly called "activist judges" simply because they refuse to disregard constitutional law. There are actual "activist judges" out there because we are all human and judges are included in that.

Short Version (too late I know), Judges don't make decisions lightly.
 
2013-03-13 07:58:38 PM

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

I'm willing to bet you that this interpretation is what Bridenstine meant and not your interpretation.


The Constitution never said a lot of things. It doesn't, for instance, allow us to have either an Air Force or a Coast Guard.

What to do, what to do...
 
2013-03-13 08:00:09 PM

what_now: DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Seriously? "Area man passionate defender of what he thinks the constitution says" is satire"


While that's not a mainstream position, its not insane. The Constitution does not, in fact, give the court the power to do that.
 
2013-03-13 08:00:48 PM

Semi-Semetic: That poor poor woman. Who forced her to interview that man?


She's married to Clarence Thomas. She's used to teh stupid.
 
2013-03-13 08:01:05 PM

nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.


Yes, but I think this might be a bit like when Biden said he didn't remember "the website number," then remembered (or perhaps was told by someone off-camera) and said it was recovery.gov.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJnJKE8kkmM

Websites do have numbers, so he's right, but Biden doesn't know the first thing about DNS, so he's still wrong.

Objectively constitutional versus legally considered constitutional is probably not a distinction this man understands.
 
2013-03-13 08:01:34 PM

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

I'm willing to bet you that this interpretation is what Bridenstine meant and not your interpretation.


While that's not a mainstream position, its not insane. The Constitution does not, in fact, give the court the power to do that.

/meant to quote this in my last post
 
2013-03-13 08:01:56 PM

Frank N Stein: Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.


Is DC flouting the ruling on the basis of well, that's just like, your opinion, man, or are they disagreeing with the conclusions reached therein but falling the guidance of the court as to the constitutionality of the ruling? Because what this moron is doing is a whole different ballgame from believing that the decision should have gone the other way.
 
2013-03-13 08:04:24 PM
Gyrfalcon:  "{lots of intelligent text}"  so what you are saying is that what is constitutional and what is not can change over time!?!?!??  Who would have thunk it?
 
2013-03-13 08:04:35 PM

Gyrfalcon: The Constitution never said a lot of things. It doesn't, for instance, allow us to have either an Air Force or a Coast Guard.

What to do, what to do...


I'm sure Scalia and the conservative justices will strike down both in a heartbeat.

Constitutional Originalism* and all.

*note does not apply to the powers of the military, the limits of the powers of republican presidents, the limits of government intrusion into personal lives (especially if it involves hot penis on penis action) or the actual constitution itself
 
2013-03-13 08:05:24 PM
It's not uncommon for far right morons to claim that Marbury v. Madison is unconstitutional, because they say so.
 
2013-03-13 08:05:50 PM

Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.


The Giants won the Superbowl.
 
2013-03-13 08:07:02 PM

DamnYankees: what_now: DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Seriously? "Area man passionate defender of what he thinks the constitution says" is satire"

While that's not a mainstream position, its not insane. The Constitution does not, in fact, give the court the power to do that.


The power to what... magically change someone's personal opinion of something?  Well, duh.
 
2013-03-13 08:07:52 PM
Oklahoma.

Republican.

'nuff said.
 
2013-03-13 08:08:37 PM
Oh, come now. Supreme Court decisions mean nothing. Ask any gun control thread.
 
2013-03-13 08:09:00 PM

toomuchwhargarbl: It's not uncommon for far right morons to claim that Marbury v. Madison is unconstitutional, because they say so.


i1282.photobucket.com
 
2013-03-13 08:10:54 PM

Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.


He got a head injury and lost 80% of his critical thinking skills?
 
2013-03-13 08:12:47 PM

cmunic8r99: Semi-Semetic: That poor poor woman. Who forced her to interview that man?

She's married to Clarence Thomas. She's used to teh stupid.


She may be, but that man displays a whole new level of stupid. At least he's not from SC. Or maybe I should wish he was as now that means even our derp is second fiddle at best.
 
2013-03-13 08:15:53 PM

Albino Squid: Frank N Stein: Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Is DC flouting the ruling on the basis of well, that's just like, your opinion, man, or are they disagreeing with the conclusions reached therein but falling the guidance of the court as to the constitutionality of the ruling? Because what this moron is doing is a whole different ballgame from believing that the decision should have gone the other way.


Typical exchange:

"Let's pass a crazy restrictive law! Dead children!"

"That would be unconstitutional."

"But 'MILITIA!'"

"That's been ruled on by SCOTUS. You'd have to amend the constitution."

"Nuh-uh! MILITIA!"
 
2013-03-13 08:17:06 PM

basemetal: //Fine christian people...........when you hear that, watch your back and watch your wallet


and yer cornhole
 
2013-03-13 08:18:02 PM
www.laobserved.com  Conservative Republicans may contain DERP*

*Actual amount of DERP may vary greatly between individual models.
 
2013-03-13 08:18:07 PM
Uh, you guys do realize that the Supreme Court does many things besides just saying "constitutional" or "unconstitutional" right?  We get our laws from many sources, administrative law (statutes written by Congress), case law (the court's interpretation of a given situation), and constitutional law (self-explanatory).

The constitutionality of a law is only ruled upon when that is the item charged in court.  The Supreme Court handles a lot of these because generally they're a big deal, but they handle plenty of other things as well.
 
2013-03-13 08:20:23 PM

chumboobler: A. This guy is a simpleton.

B. How the fark did he get elected?


C. See A.
 
2013-03-13 08:23:08 PM
Well he didn't say anything about rape.  I guess that is an improvement of sorts.
 
2013-03-13 08:29:36 PM
Geeze I only had the read the headline and I started laughing
 
2013-03-13 08:32:54 PM

mrshowrules: I remember a few Farkers arguing at the time that just because SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate, didn't mean it was Constitutional.  I'm always surprised when a politician is revealed to be as dumb as the dumbest posters on Fark.  Even thought I disagree with many Conservative Farkers, they do appear smarter, on average, than the people they vote for.


this has never EVER been my experience.
 
2013-03-13 08:33:41 PM
Whatever the technical accuracy of this man's complaints, considering that a Supreme Court of the past invented a "right to abortion" out of thin air his criticisms of the supposed infallibility of SCOTUS are understandable. What we have to expect is that increasingly bizarre and fanciful interpretations of the Constitution will continue to arise in the future as the court -- in concert with society as a whole -- increasingly tilts to the Left, or at least until the Constitution itself is scrapped as an artefact of Evil Dead White Males.

/also LOL at the article using the term "reproductive freedom" to describe something explicitly intended to prevent reproduction. Mr. Orwell, please pick up the courtesy phone!
 
2013-03-13 08:37:54 PM

PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.


he said it to Thomas's wife. what's that tell you.

yeah beside Thomas is unfit and should recuse himself from damn near everything.
 
2013-03-13 08:39:59 PM

make me some tea: chumboobler: A. This guy is a simpleton.

B. How the fark did he get elected?

C. See A.


probably bought Cynthia McKinney's The Loon's Guide to WInning Federal Elections.

It happens, hopefully the process corrects itself next cycle.
 
2013-03-13 08:41:32 PM
Sometimes I wish that in order to run for public office (run for, not vote for) candidates must be able to get a grade of 80% or higher on a civics test made up of short answer and essay questions. There would be separate state and federal exams, with new editions released a year from the next election day.

But it would never happen..
 
2013-03-13 08:42:33 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: LOL at the article using the term "reproductive freedom" to describe something explicitly intended to prevent reproduction.


Yeah, LOL at giving people the freedom to choose if they reproduce, and calling that "reproductive freedom."

LOL LOL.
 
2013-03-13 08:43:50 PM

make me some tea: basemetal: //Fine christian people...........when you hear that, watch your back and watch your wallet

and yer cornhole


The wide stance gives you warning for those, tea.
 
2013-03-13 08:44:13 PM
Well, he's right that Congress doesn't have to pass laws that are constitutional. Since the electorate has the attention span of a gnat, there is no penalty for passing unconstitutional laws; they just waste everyone's time and money until a court overturns them.

But wasting everyone's time and money seems to be part of the Republican platform, so I don't expect him to be bothered by that aspect of it. I suspect the point of the exercise is to give him something he can use to stir up his drooling voter base.
 
2013-03-13 08:47:46 PM
Why do I get the feeling that they can't serve soup in the capitol building cafeteria because half of congress would drown if they did? Do these people have minders, or are they allowed to just wander around? Do they remove the helmets just for press events?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the people who "lead" this country are farking idiots.

//I apologize to idiots everywhere for the comparison.
 
2013-03-13 09:04:23 PM
Technically, he's right.  It doesn't mean that any particular ruling _is_ constitutional.  It means that the issue was found to be constitutional by that sitting court, and that a different court might have ruled differently.  Every judicial ruling they issue is like this.
 
2013-03-13 09:07:11 PM

basemetal: make me some tea: basemetal: //Fine christian people...........when you hear that, watch your back and watch your wallet

and yer cornhole

The wide stance gives you warning for those, tea.


Good to know.
 
2013-03-13 09:07:41 PM

Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.


I know a few of those.

Only once have I gotten the argument that the people are the final arbiters about what is constitutional via amendments to the Constitution, but usually it's just "I don't want to accept what SCOTUS has said".
 
2013-03-13 09:14:40 PM
As much as I detest this guy's politics, I don't have a problem with drawing a distinction between "held constitutional"--or constitutional in the sense of being enforceable as a practical matter--and "constitutional" in the sense of actually conforming to the standards set out in the Constitution.


The courts are also tasked with determining criminal guilt, but I would certainly distinguish between a person who has been "found guilty" and a person who  is "guilty." And the same goes for any number of other questions--whether a shooting is "justified," whether behavior is "unethical," whether material is "obscene," and so on.
 
2013-03-13 09:17:54 PM

nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.


Well, he's partially right.  For sure, he's a moron when he says "Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional."

However, he's correct when he "dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court."  He's probably correct by accident, but he's correct nonetheless.  Congress can write blatantly unconstitutional laws in direct violation of rulings by SCOTUS, and in fact does so all the time.  The federal courts will then promptly enjoin the law from taking effect and then declare it unconstitutional, but that won't stop Congress from writing them, nor will it stop those laws from being controlling unless and until a federal court says otherwise.
 
2013-03-13 09:23:07 PM
That guy's married? What does bride of Bridenstein think?
 
2013-03-13 09:28:20 PM

nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.


Where he really made himself look like an idiot- or at least a miserable hack -  is where he said that the court has been stacked by the democrats. Other than that, one can certainly make the argument (as you did so admirably above) that each decision is the result of the subjective judgement of any one particular court rather than some kind of revealed divine truth, and may be subject to change at some point in the future. If it weren't for the attempt to blame the Democrats for a "stacked" court that contains 5 Republican nominated justices, I'd be willing to let his comments slide as inexactly articulated (perhaps to make more sense to regular Joe TV watcher) rather than moronic.
 
2013-03-13 09:35:18 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: Albino Squid: Frank N Stein: Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Is DC flouting the ruling on the basis of well, that's just like, your opinion, man, or are they disagreeing with the conclusions reached therein but falling the guidance of the court as to the constitutionality of the ruling? Because what this moron is doing is a whole different ballgame from believing that the decision should have gone the other way.

Typical exchange:

"Let's pass a crazy restrictive law! Dead children! Hey, there's 20 dead kids, let's start looking at how to cut this down. Here's some ideas."

"That would be unconstitutional THIS DESTROYS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!."

"But 'MILITIA!' ...Not really...you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater either..."

"That's been ruled on by SCOTUS. You'd have to amend the constitution."

"Nuh-uh! MILITIA! Erm. That's not actually how it works..."

"AS LONG AS THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT!!!!"

"o.O"


FTFY.

/If you consider 'low-capacity magazines', 'mental health care', 'background checks', and 'nothing that can't be used for hunting' to be unreasonable, that's not actually because you're  right.
 
2013-03-13 09:42:25 PM

DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.


I think perhaps that he would have been better served saying "I disgree with the reasoning used by the court used to justify its decision. It was (insert sloppy/contradictory to precedent/absurd/etc etc). Hopefully, a future court will see things differently and reverse this decision before too much damage is caused (or whatever political lingo).
 
2013-03-13 09:45:05 PM

mrshowrules: I remember a few Farkers arguing at the time that just because SCOTUS upheld the individual mandate, didn't mean it was Constitutional.  I'm always surprised when a politician is revealed to be as dumb as the dumbest posters on Fark.  Even thought I disagree with many Conservative Farkers, they do appear smarter, on average, than the people they vote for.


Is it any different than the way people call me a jackbooted authoritarian racist for daring to point out that border patrol checkpoints are constitutional?

I am not playing bsrb, but I see a shiatload of liberals dismiss the supreme court's rulings when they don't like them.
 
2013-03-13 09:52:11 PM

EvilRacistNaziFascist: Whatever the technical accuracy of this man's complaints, considering that a Supreme Court of the past invented a "right to abortion" out of thin air his criticisms of the supposed infallibility of SCOTUS are understandable. What we have to expect is that increasingly bizarre and fanciful interpretations of the Constitution will continue to arise in the future as the court -- in concert with society as a whole -- increasingly tilts to the Left, or at least until the Constitution itself is scrapped as an artefact of Evil Dead White Males.

/also LOL at the article using the term "reproductive freedom" to describe something explicitly intended to prevent reproduction. Mr. Orwell, please pick up the courtesy phone!


1. That's artifact.
2. The court is about as left as Anthony Kennedy (perhaps Roberts) decides on any given day. Scalia is basically a shaved ape.
3. I know it's been a tough road to hoe as a white male (I'm one too), but despite the tragic hardships you endure maybe you could have a small bit of pity on women who might want to have some small bit of say over what they do with their own bodies.
 
2013-03-13 09:57:14 PM

PsiChick: /If you consider 'low-capacity magazines', 'mental health care', 'background checks', and 'nothing that can't be used for hunting' to be unreasonable, that's not actually because you're  right.


Actually, I was talking about the *crazy* laws being proposed on Fark -- things like having to ask permission of the government, having to qualify with government testing, having to be an active member of the army or national guard, etc., etc.

DC vs. Heller didn't change anything about legislating what qualifies as "arms," and background checks have been ruled constitutional.

Thanks for your zombie reaction, though.

/dead children!
 
2013-03-13 10:04:32 PM

Emposter: Congress can write blatantly unconstitutional laws in direct violation of rulings by SCOTUS, and in fact does so all the time.


What makes me laugh and cry is when people like Sen. Feinstein say things like SCOTUS should assume that all laws passed by a validly-elected legislature are Constitutional.
 
2013-03-13 10:04:33 PM

Emposter: The federal courts will then promptly enjoin the law from taking effect and then declare it unconstitutional, but that won't stop Congress from writing them, nor will it stop those laws from being controlling unless and until a federal court says otherwise.


And thank His Noodly Appendageness for the checks and balances to protect us from those morons.
 
2013-03-13 10:07:24 PM

syrynxx: Sen. Feinstein


Another one who should be repeatedly raped by the constitution until he's memorized it by anal osmosis.
 
2013-03-13 10:13:22 PM

ReverendJasen: Another one who should be repeatedly raped by the constitution until he's memorized it by anal osmosis.


Really?


Reallllyyyy???
 
2013-03-13 10:19:49 PM

Smackledorfer: I am not playing bsrb, but I see a shiatload of liberals dismiss the supreme court's rulings when they don't like them.


Dismissing a ruling, i.e. expressing the opinion that the court got something wrong, is not even in the same ballpark as saying, "Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional."

The former is an opinion, or possibly a call to action. The latter is, at best, ignorance of what the term "constitutional" means, and at worst is ignorance of the most basic precepts of the Constitution itself.
 
2013-03-13 10:19:54 PM
What?  "He's" isn't a valid contraction of "he has?"
 
2013-03-13 10:23:12 PM

syrynxx: What makes me laugh and cry is when people like Sen. Feinstein say things like SCOTUS should assume that all laws passed by a validly-elected legislature are Constitutional.


I grant you that she plays fast and loose with the stupid remarks, but how about a source or an actual quote on this?

/Not saying you're wrong on her sentiment - just saying that in a thread like this you owe it to your argument to back yourself up with real info rather than just off-the-cuff typing of things you remember hearing someone say.
 
2013-03-13 10:23:42 PM

100 Watt Walrus: Smackledorfer: I am not playing bsrb, but I see a shiatload of liberals dismiss the supreme court's rulings when they don't like them.

Dismissing a ruling, i.e. expressing the opinion that the court got something wrong, is not even in the same ballpark as saying, "Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional."

The former is an opinion, or possibly a call to action. The latter is, at best, ignorance of what the term "constitutional" means, and at worst is ignorance of the most basic precepts of the Constitution itself.


The people I refer to ARE saying those things are unconstitutional.

I get piled on by a horde of law-ignorant morans in every law enforcement thread I go into.

It gets tiresome and is no different than conservatards screaming about obamacare.

/shrug
 
2013-03-13 10:23:52 PM

ReverendJasen: What?  "He's" isn't a valid contraction of "he has?"


Digging the hole deeper I see.
 
2013-03-13 10:25:04 PM

ReverendJasen: What?  "He's" isn't a valid contraction of "he has?"


You're either trolling or so ignorant that I'm surprised you can type. Why don't you do a GIS for Sen. Diane Feinstein then get back to us about the correct use of gender pronouns.
 
2013-03-13 10:27:20 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: PsiChick: /If you consider 'low-capacity magazines', 'mental health care', 'background checks', and 'nothing that can't be used for hunting' to be unreasonable, that's not actually because you're  right.

Actually, I was talking about the *crazy* laws being proposed on Fark -- things like having to ask permission of the government, having to qualify with government testing, having to be an active member of the army or national guard, etc., etc.

DC vs. Heller didn't change anything about legislating what qualifies as "arms," and background checks have been ruled constitutional.

Thanks for your zombie reaction, though.

/dead children!


If you're going to scream about how regulations don't change anything, you might want to notice that your position doesn't hold if there's  barely any regulations in the first place. And 'b-b-but PEOPLE SAID SCARY THINGS ON FARK!' is not a regulation. I'd hate to be your boss seeing how you react to society brainstorming. 'b-b-but WE CAN'T SELL OUR PRODUCT ON BOOBS!' 'Yes, I know, Lenny, we're brainstorming right now, you're supposed to throw out crazy ideas...'
 
2013-03-13 10:29:48 PM

Fart_Machine: Digging the hole derper I see.


ftfy
 
2013-03-13 10:34:49 PM

PsiChick: If you're going to scream about how regulations don't change anything, you might want to notice that your position doesn't hold if there's  barely any regulations in the first place. And 'b-b-but PEOPLE SAID SCARY THINGS ON FARK!' is not a regulation. I'd hate to be your boss seeing how you react to society brainstorming. 'b-b-but WE CAN'T SELL OUR PRODUCT ON BOOBS!' 'Yes, I know, Lenny, we're brainstorming right now, you're supposed to throw out crazy ideas...'


I didn't say anything of the kind. You're making it all up in your head.

I was saying that people are advocating obviously unconstitutional regulations as a knee-jerk reaction to anomalies, and doing so by ignoring DC vs. Heller. If you have to qualify for a right, it isn't a right. If you have to join the army or national guard for a right, it isn't a right. Putting financial requirements in place simply to impede a right means you have impeded the right. I've offered many times on Fark that the way to achieve these regulations is to advocate repeal and replacement of the Second Amendment, and people have repeatedly said, "But MILITIA! It says MILITIA!"

There are plenty of reasonable regulations in place that have all been found constitutional. I wouldn't want to live in NYC, but I don't say its regulation of handguns is unconstitutional.

Oh, wait, I can't throw out your craziness. You're brainstorming, I guess.

/dead children!
 
2013-03-13 10:36:04 PM

ReverendJasen: What?  "He's" isn't a valid contraction of "he has?"


Oh. Man.

I need more popcorn.
 
2013-03-13 10:38:32 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: PsiChick: If you're going to scream about how regulations don't change anything, you might want to notice that your position doesn't hold if there's  barely any regulations in the first place. And 'b-b-but PEOPLE SAID SCARY THINGS ON FARK!' is not a regulation. I'd hate to be your boss seeing how you react to society brainstorming. 'b-b-but WE CAN'T SELL OUR PRODUCT ON BOOBS!' 'Yes, I know, Lenny, we're brainstorming right now, you're supposed to throw out crazy ideas...'

I didn't say anything of the kind. You're making it all up in your head.

I was saying that people are advocating obviously unconstitutional regulations as a knee-jerk reaction to anomalies, and doing so by ignoring DC vs. Heller. If you have to qualify for a right, it isn't a right. If you have to join the army or national guard for a right, it isn't a right. Putting financial requirements in place simply to impede a right means you have impeded the right. I've offered many times on Fark that the way to achieve these regulations is to advocate repeal and replacement of the Second Amendment, and people have repeatedly said, "But MILITIA! It says MILITIA!"

There are plenty of reasonable regulations in place that have all been found constitutional. I wouldn't want to live in NYC, but I don't say its regulation of handguns is unconstitutional.

Oh, wait, I can't throw out your craziness. You're brainstorming, I guess.

/dead children!


...da fark...wow,  that's the wrong thread. Sorry 'bout that.

/That said, you've still got a farking stupid argument there. What people say on Fark? No, it's not ever going to be considered in any amount of seriousness. Take it for what it is--random opinions--put out your own, and leave it at that. Make a petition if you're really worried about the issue.
 
2013-03-13 10:39:04 PM

Smackledorfer: The people I refer to ARE saying those things are unconstitutional.

I get piled on by a horde of law-ignorant morans in every law enforcement thread I go into.

It gets tiresome and is no different than conservatards screaming about obamacare.

/shrug


Are they elected officials?

Morally, Bridenstine may have a point - I mean, every 5-4 ruling by definition means 4 of the justices basically think the ruling agreed by the other 5 isn't constitutional. There's room for argument, there's room for new laws to challenge the ruling, and there's room for an amendment attempt.

But there's a followup question this clown needs to address to be clear if he's ignorant or just not careful enough at choosing his words: What is the deciding factor of whether or not something is constitutional? He'd need to answer that, and back it up with the Constitution itself to demonstrate he's not a nitwit.

/again, assuming he didn't just mis-speak
 
2013-03-13 10:39:36 PM

ReverendJasen: What?  "He's" isn't a valid contraction of "he has?"


Yes, it is.

But, still, REEEEAAAALLYY???
 
2013-03-13 10:41:34 PM

ReverendJasen: Fart_Machine: Digging the hole derper I see.

ftfy


Well, it looks like I've been had.

img3.imageshack.us
 
2013-03-13 10:41:45 PM

ReverendJasen: What?  "He's" isn't a valid contraction of "he has?"



He sure has a way with gun legislation
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-03-13 10:43:37 PM

PsiChick: /That said, you've still got a farking stupid argument there. What people say on Fark? No, it's not ever going to be considered in any amount of seriousness. Take it for what it is--random opinions--put out your own, and leave it at that. Make a petition if you're really worried about the issue.


If you'd read the posts I was responding to, you would have seen that we were talking about citing this article the next time someone offered an opinion ignoring DC v. Heller. It's even quoted in your original response.

Do try to keep up.
 
2013-03-13 10:44:57 PM
RexTalionis: Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

You know what else was never explicitly in the Constitution? RON PAUL.

/mind explosion
 
2013-03-13 10:46:06 PM

100 Watt Walrus: Smackledorfer: The people I refer to ARE saying those things are unconstitutional.

I get piled on by a horde of law-ignorant morans in every law enforcement thread I go into.

It gets tiresome and is no different than conservatards screaming about obamacare.

/shrug

Are they elected officials?

Morally, Bridenstine may have a point - I mean, every 5-4 ruling by definition means 4 of the justices basically think the ruling agreed by the other 5 isn't constitutional. There's room for argument, there's room for new laws to challenge the ruling, and there's room for an amendment attempt.

But there's a followup question this clown needs to address to be clear if he's ignorant or just not careful enough at choosing his words: What is the deciding factor of whether or not something is constitutional? He'd need to answer that, and back it up with the Constitution itself to demonstrate he's not a nitwit.

/again, assuming he didn't just mis-speak


I never said they were elected officials.

At this point it seems like you just want to disagree with me and are willing to change angles of attack until you find one that works. Have fun with that.
 
2013-03-13 11:12:16 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: PsiChick: /That said, you've still got a farking stupid argument there. What people say on Fark? No, it's not ever going to be considered in any amount of seriousness. Take it for what it is--random opinions--put out your own, and leave it at that. Make a petition if you're really worried about the issue.

If you'd read the posts I was responding to, you would have seen that we were talking about citing this article the next time someone offered an opinion ignoring DC v. Heller. It's even quoted in your original response.

Do try to keep up.


Lenny_da_Hog: Actually, I was talking about the *crazy* laws being proposed on Fark -- things like having to ask permission of the government, having to qualify with government testing, having to be an active member of the army or national guard, etc., etc.

 
2013-03-13 11:12:57 PM

100 Watt Walrus: ReverendJasen: Fart_Machine: Digging the hole derper I see.

ftfy

Well, it looks like I've been had.

[img3.imageshack.us image 427x240]


Sorry. :)
I missed the s, but decided to be funny and double down derp, forgetting Poe's law has pretty much made it impossible to distinguish legitimate derp from derp-derp and that Fark has a way to shut that whole thing down.  I could triple dog derp and explain my deeply held convictions that Feinstein is a man in drag (Zhivago's pic being case in point), however enough thread derailment from me.
 
2013-03-13 11:15:08 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Cyberluddite: "Who the fark are these assholes 'Marbury' and 'Madison' anyway?  WTF makes them so special?"

See, I would be open to an intelligent discussion of whether Marbury v. Madison was correctly decided.  SCOTUS deciding what is and isn't constitutional is not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution, so whether the case was wrongly decided could be debated.  But I'm guessing this guy does not know that, but rather is someone that says "Nuh uh!  You can't do that!" when a SCOTUS decision comes down that he doesn't like.


The Founders didn't feel like it needed to be in the Constitution.  Read Madison's notes:  by unanimous consent all agreed on the second or third day that since the highest court in each of the States under the Articles of Confederation had that power for their State Constitution, so would the Supreme Court.
 
2013-03-13 11:16:15 PM

ReverendJasen: I could triple dog derp and explain my deeply held convictions that Feinstein is a man in drag (Zhivago's pic being case in point)


Damnit... I fell for it like a ton of bricks......

:(
 
2013-03-13 11:16:48 PM
This guy is my congressman,

He primaried a halfway decent old lets make a deal republican in John Sullivan, who for some reason wasn't righty tighty enough.

District 1 is greater Tulsa, and even tho mid-town & downtown are our little portlandia, we are surrounded by the burbs who are filled with tea peeps and people who cheer when bridenstein says this.

I don't really see any end in sight for this kind of republican not being elected here.
 
2013-03-13 11:18:27 PM

Solkar: PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

In general, I like living in OKC, but our politicians keep getting dumber and more extreme. That's one of my biggest frustrations. That, and that people who I thought were intelligent keep electing these idiots.


I live in Tulsa and feel the same way, bridenstein is my rep, I see no end in sight for this derp in our districts.
 
2013-03-13 11:24:18 PM

Smackledorfer: 100 Watt Walrus: Smackledorfer: The people I refer to ARE saying those things are unconstitutional.

I get piled on by a horde of law-ignorant morans in every law enforcement thread I go into.

It gets tiresome and is no different than conservatards screaming about obamacare.

/shrug

Are they elected officials?

Morally, Bridenstine may have a point - I mean, every 5-4 ruling by definition means 4 of the justices basically think the ruling agreed by the other 5 isn't constitutional. There's room for argument, there's room for new laws to challenge the ruling, and there's room for an amendment attempt.

But there's a followup question this clown needs to address to be clear if he's ignorant or just not careful enough at choosing his words: What is the deciding factor of whether or not something is constitutional? He'd need to answer that, and back it up with the Constitution itself to demonstrate he's not a nitwit.

/again, assuming he didn't just mis-speak

I never said they were elected officials.

At this point it seems like you just want to disagree with me and are willing to change angles of attack until you find one that works. Have fun with that.


I'm not really disagreeing with you. I'm saying...

1) There's a difference between "I disagree with SCOTUS" and "SCOTUS isn't the arbiter of constitutionality"

2) There's a difference between Joe Farker saying "The SCOTUS decision doesn't mean their ruling is constitutional" and Joe Sworn-to-Uphold-the-Constitution saying the same thing

3) Bridenstine may have been trying to make a valid point, but made it poorly

4) If his point really was that "SCOTUS isn't the arbiter of constitutionality," then he should clarify who he thinks is that arbiter, and back that up with citations from the Constitution itself

This is partially a restatement of my original point, and partially a clarification based on your responses.
 
2013-03-13 11:26:05 PM

ReverendJasen: I could triple dog derp ...


Soooo stealing that.
 
2013-03-13 11:30:58 PM

Paris1127: Sometimes I wish that in order to run for public office (run for, not vote for) candidates must be able to get a grade of 80% or higher on a civics test made up of short answer and essay questions. There would be separate state and federal exams, with new editions released a year from the next election day.

But it would never happen..


Hmmm,,,,, Voting rights acts don't specificially cover filings for office.
 
2013-03-13 11:52:09 PM

Gergesa: Well he didn't say anything about rape.  I guess that is an improvement of sorts.


Well, that's not in the constitution either...
 
2013-03-13 11:58:50 PM

meat0918: Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.

I know a few of those.

Only once have I gotten the argument that the people are the final arbiters about what is constitutional via amendments to the Constitution, but usually it's just "I don't want to accept what SCOTUS has said".


This guy said "Just because the Suoteme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean it is". I explained how the constitution he claims to know so much about established the SCOTUS to do just that and if they ruled something to be constitutional then it by god is constitutional.

I never convinced him, but them he's still angry about Obama having the cajones to actually be black and president simultaneously.
 
2013-03-14 12:02:52 AM

Krymson Tyde: meat0918: Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.

I know a few of those.

Only once have I gotten the argument that the people are the final arbiters about what is constitutional via amendments to the Constitution, but usually it's just "I don't want to accept what SCOTUS has said".

This guy said "Just because the Suoteme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean it is". I explained how the constitution he claims to know so much about established the SCOTUS to do just that and if they ruled something to be constitutional then it by god is constitutional.

I never convinced him, but them he's still angry about Obama having the cajones to actually be black and president simultaneously.


Holy shiat, farking 'Supreme'

Suoteme? WTF?
 
2013-03-14 12:11:05 AM

Krymson Tyde: Suoteme? WTF?


Suoteme is the cream that Scalia and Thomas use to soothe their burning butthurt over Obama's existence every night.
 
2013-03-14 12:11:40 AM

fusillade762: Wow. How many ways can you be wrong in one interview?


The phrase you're looking for is "fractal wrongness".
 
2013-03-14 12:13:38 AM

Krymson Tyde: Krymson Tyde: meat0918: Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.

I know a few of those.

Only once have I gotten the argument that the people are the final arbiters about what is constitutional via amendments to the Constitution, but usually it's just "I don't want to accept what SCOTUS has said".

This guy said "Just because the Suoteme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean it is". I explained how the constitution he claims to know so much about established the SCOTUS to do just that and if they ruled something to be constitutional then it by god is constitutional.

I never convinced him, but them he's still angry about Obama having the cajones to actually be black and president simultaneously.

Holy shiat, farking 'Supreme'

Suoteme? WTF?


My guess is your fingers temporarily relocated to the right.  I was wondering for a second if there was a Japanese embassy that had established a court or something.
 
2013-03-14 12:17:43 AM

JolobinSmokin: Solkar: PreMortem: When a member of congress, or state legislature, says something like this so profoundly ignorant, they should be escorted out of the Capitol and forbidden from holding public office ever again.

In general, I like living in OKC, but our politicians keep getting dumber and more extreme. That's one of my biggest frustrations. That, and that people who I thought were intelligent keep electing these idiots.

I live in Tulsa and feel the same way, bridenstein is my rep, I see no end in sight for this derp in our districts.


What do you expect from the city that produced Jim Inhofe?
 
2013-03-14 12:26:41 AM

Peki: Krymson Tyde: Krymson Tyde: meat0918: Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.

I know a few of those.

Only once have I gotten the argument that the people are the final arbiters about what is constitutional via amendments to the Constitution, but usually it's just "I don't want to accept what SCOTUS has said".

This guy said "Just because the Suoteme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean it is". I explained how the constitution he claims to know so much about established the SCOTUS to do just that and if they ruled something to be constitutional then it by god is constitutional.

I never convinced him, but them he's still angry about Obama having the cajones to actually be black and president simultaneously.

Holy shiat, farking 'Supreme'

Suoteme? WTF?

My guess is your fingers temporarily relocated to the right.  I was wondering for a second if there was a Japanese embassy that had established a court or something.


So you're saying they were, for a brief moment, themselves teatards?

Damn, I feel dirty.
 
2013-03-14 12:27:51 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: Krymson Tyde: Suoteme? WTF?

Suoteme is the cream that Scalia and Thomas use to soothe their burning butthurt over Obama's existence every night.


Now I have the most disturbing visual.
 
2013-03-14 12:36:01 AM
WTF am I reading...

Ok, guy: You can give your opinion about the Marbury decision, and even poke holes in it (I might even agree with you), but that decision has been the law of the land for OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

*deskpalmheadface*
 
2013-03-14 12:37:13 AM

PsiChick: Lenny_da_Hog: PsiChick: /That said, you've still got a farking stupid argument there. What people say on Fark? No, it's not ever going to be considered in any amount of seriousness. Take it for what it is--random opinions--put out your own, and leave it at that. Make a petition if you're really worried about the issue.

If you'd read the posts I was responding to, you would have seen that we were talking about citing this article the next time someone offered an opinion ignoring DC v. Heller. It's even quoted in your original response.

Do try to keep up.

Lenny_da_Hog: Actually, I was talking about the *crazy* laws being proposed on Fark -- things like having to ask permission of the government, having to qualify with government testing, having to be an active member of the army or national guard, etc., etc.


So, we talk about making fun of things on Fark, and you think we should talk about something else?

Why do you hate Fark? Are you turning here for real problem-solving or something? Do you think this is a think-tank?
 
2013-03-14 12:43:04 AM

ManateeGag: don't these people take an oath to uphold and defend the constitution?  how can they uphold and defend something they didn't actually read or comprehend.


Since most of them are Evangelical Fundamentalists, They've had a lot of practice in upholding and defending books they didn't actually read.
 
2013-03-14 12:46:30 AM

Krymson Tyde: Peki: Krymson Tyde: Krymson Tyde: meat0918: Krymson Tyde: I've had several debates with a teatard cousin regarding the SCOTUS and constitutionality of laws.

Of course the same guy claims to have been a life-long democrat until some mysterious event in 2008 made him change parties.

I know a few of those.

Only once have I gotten the argument that the people are the final arbiters about what is constitutional via amendments to the Constitution, but usually it's just "I don't want to accept what SCOTUS has said".

This guy said "Just because the Suoteme Court says something is constitutional doesn't mean it is". I explained how the constitution he claims to know so much about established the SCOTUS to do just that and if they ruled something to be constitutional then it by god is constitutional.

I never convinced him, but them he's still angry about Obama having the cajones to actually be black and president simultaneously.

Holy shiat, farking 'Supreme'

Suoteme? WTF?

My guess is your fingers temporarily relocated to the right.  I was wondering for a second if there was a Japanese embassy that had established a court or something.

So you're saying they were, for a brief moment, themselves teatards?

Damn, I feel dirty.


Ha! I usually pull out the old "Peki's fingers are currently in contract negotiations with her brain. Typos may occur at anytime," but that's a gem I may have to steal.
 
2013-03-14 01:11:06 AM

Emposter: nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.

Well, he's partially right.  For sure, he's a moron when he says "Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional."

However, he's correct when he "dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court."  He's probably correct by accident, but he's correct nonetheless.  Congress can write blatantly unconstitutional laws in direct violation of rulings by SCOTUS, and in fact does so all the time.  The federal courts will then promptly enjoin the law from taking effect and then declare it unconstitutional, but that won't stop Congress from writing them, nor will it stop those laws from being controlling unless and until a federal court says otherwise.


I don't think he's correct in your sense in this last paragraph.  My understanding is a Congresscritter would violate the oath of office if he voted aye to a law he truly believed to be unconstitutional.  In that sense, and side-stepping this possible subtle difference between a SCOTUS ruling and Constitutionality,  they "must write laws within the boundaries" of the Constitution.
 
2013-03-14 01:11:33 AM

gameshowhost: WTF am I reading...

Ok, guy: You can give your opinion about the Marbury decision, and even poke holes in it (I might even agree with you), but that decision has been the law of the land for OVER TWO HUNDRED YEARS.

*deskpalmheadface*


So wait...that must mean Obama took his Magic Time Machine back over 200 years and corrupted John Marshall???
 
2013-03-14 01:17:57 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: As much as I detest this guy's politics, I don't have a problem with drawing a distinction between "held constitutional"--or constitutional in the sense of being enforceable as a practical matter--and "constitutional" in the sense of actually conforming to the standards set out in the Constitution.


The courts are also tasked with determining criminal guilt, but I would certainly distinguish between a person who has been "found guilty" and a person who  is "guilty." And the same goes for any number of other questions--whether a shooting is "justified," whether behavior is "unethical," whether material is "obscene," and so on.


very well said.
 
2013-03-14 01:22:33 AM

Smackledorfer: 100 Watt Walrus: Smackledorfer: I am not playing bsrb, but I see a shiatload of liberals dismiss the supreme court's rulings when they don't like them.

Dismissing a ruling, i.e. expressing the opinion that the court got something wrong, is not even in the same ballpark as saying, "Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional."

The former is an opinion, or possibly a call to action. The latter is, at best, ignorance of what the term "constitutional" means, and at worst is ignorance of the most basic precepts of the Constitution itself.

The people I refer to ARE saying those things are unconstitutional.

I get piled on by a horde of law-ignorant morans in every law enforcement thread I go into.

It gets tiresome and is no different than conservatards screaming about obamacare.

/shrug


Figuring out when to use "constitutional" can be tough.  By one meaning, a thing is constitutional if SCOTUS says it is.  However, that can change over time, and many decisions can be interpreted to have different meanings.  Under this meaning, SCOTUS is always right, because they decide what right is.  By another meaning, a thing is constitutional if it is proper under the intended meaning of the Constitution as it was written.  However, even the framers didn't agree on what the Constitution was supposed to mean, and many parts are vague. Under this meaning, SCOTUS can be wrong, even though their wrong decisions are by definition right.

Really, they should have different terms...but they don't.  I'm pretty sure it's much, much too late to fix it.

I had a similar talk with my dad a few weeks back, which started with my trying to create parallel bubble universes, one for legal meaning and the other for actual meaning, and ended with my explaining to him "Look, if SCOTUS says up is down, then it's down, even if it's actually up.  At least until one of them switches and says it's up.  Because that's how it is, that's why.  Argh."  Yeah, it didn't really go well.
 
2013-03-14 01:28:00 AM

pagstuff: Emposter: nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.

Well, he's partially right.  For sure, he's a moron when he says "Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn't necessarily mean that that's constitutional."

However, he's correct when he "dismissed the idea that Congress must write laws within the boundaries set by the Supreme Court."  He's probably correct by accident, but he's correct nonetheless.  Congress can write blatantly unconstitutional laws in direct violation of rulings by SCOTUS, and in fact does so all the time.  The federal courts will then promptly enjoin the law from taking effect and then declare it unconstitutional, but that won't stop Congress from writing them, nor will it stop those laws from being controlling unless and until a federal court says otherwise.

I don't think he's correct in your sense in this last paragraph.  My understanding is a Congresscritter would violate the oath of office if he voted aye to a law he truly believed to be unconstitutional.  In that sense, and side-stepping this possible subtle difference between a SCOTUS ruling and Constitutionality,  they "must write laws within the boundaries" of the Constitution.


Without that "subtle difference" there really isn't much point to my last paragraph...or, hell, to this whole discussion.
 
2013-03-14 01:50:21 AM
Well, seeing as about half of congresscritters can't name the three branches of government that's not all that surprising of a fail...
 
2013-03-14 02:02:16 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: As much as I detest this guy's politics, I don't have a problem with drawing a distinction between "held constitutional"--or constitutional in the sense of being enforceable as a practical matter--and "constitutional" in the sense of actually conforming to the standards set out in the Constitution.


The courts are also tasked with determining criminal guilt, but I would certainly distinguish between a person who has been "found guilty" and a person who  is "guilty." And the same goes for any number of other questions--whether a shooting is "justified," whether behavior is "unethical," whether material is "obscene," and so on.


I don't think interpretation of a constitution can be compared to a criminal trial precisely because it's a matter of interpretation, as opposed to an exercise in determining a set of empirical facts.

Which is to say, it's meaningless to talk about what's "constitutional" outside of the interpretation of the body that has the last legal word (in the case of the US, the Supreme Court). You will, for instance, find a number of cases where the Supreme Court reversed its earlier decisions despite the fact that the relevant parts of the Constitution weren't amended - this wasn't because Constitutional physicists developed stronger Constitutional microscopes and were able to better identify the properties and true meaning of the Constitution, but rather, because changing social values led to changing interpretations and thus, changes in the boundaries that define constitutionality.
 
2013-03-14 03:10:27 AM
Just wait until the Supreme Court decides a matter in favor of the Republicans and it will all suddenly change to the Supreme Court being unchangeable and the law must be upheld because they said so.
 
2013-03-14 06:24:39 AM

Lost_in_Korea: The Founders didn't feel like it needed to be in the Constitution. Read Madison's notes: by unanimous consent all agreed on the second or third day that since the highest court in each of the States under the Articles of Confederation had that power for their State Constitution, so would the Supreme Court.


I haven't read all the primary documents, but I have a sneaking suspicion that Madison knew what he was doing, but at least some of the other founders thought that they were leaving that debate for another day.

This dude, on the other hand, appears to have decided that he can ignore whatever Supreme Court decisions he disagrees with.
 
2013-03-14 07:53:16 AM

PsiChick: Lenny_da_Hog: Albino Squid: Frank N Stein: Cool. I'm going to cite this article next time someone complains that just because the SC ruled in Hellers favor doesn't mean it's constitutional.

Is DC flouting the ruling on the basis of well, that's just like, your opinion, man, or are they disagreeing with the conclusions reached therein but falling the guidance of the court as to the constitutionality of the ruling? Because what this moron is doing is a whole different ballgame from believing that the decision should have gone the other way.

Typical exchange:

"Let's pass a crazy restrictive law! Dead children! Hey, there's 20 dead kids, let's start looking at how to cut this down. Here's some ideas."

"That would be unconstitutional THIS DESTROYS THE SECOND AMENDMENT!!!."

"But 'MILITIA!' ...Not really...you can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater either..."

"That's been ruled on by SCOTUS. You'd have to amend the constitution."

"Nuh-uh! MILITIA! Erm. That's not actually how it works..."

"AS LONG AS THE SECOND AMENDMENT EXISTS WE CAN DO WHAT WE WANT!!!!"

"o.O"

FTFY.

/If you consider 'low-capacity magazines', 'mental health care', 'background checks', and 'nothing that can't be used for hunting' to be unreasonable, that's not actually because you're  right.


I'm having trouble finding the hunting clause in the Second Amendment.  Could you point it out to me?

--On Topic:  This guy is retarded.
 
2013-03-14 08:03:03 AM
This is what an OK education gets you.
 
2013-03-14 08:42:53 AM

nmrsnr: Torgo_of_Manos: It's because the cancelled Better Off Ted, isn't it?  Pissed me off too

I was happier a minute ago. Man I miss that show.


My sister was a "second second assistant director" on that show.

/csb
 
2013-03-14 09:21:53 AM
I would love to organize a campaign to send this moran thousands of copies of Marbury v. Madison, but he 1) would be unlikely to read it and 2) would be less likely to understand it and 3) would be even less likely to change his opinion if he did understand it, since it's so inconvenient to the narrative he's interested in using.

sigh.

8 years of teaching Constitutional Law to high school seniors at a public school in NYC and I'm reasonably certain that not a single one of my students had as deficient an understanding of how the SCOTUS works as this guy.
 
2013-03-14 09:37:07 AM

BSABSVR: That guy's married? What does bride of Bridenstein think?


Whatever he tells her to if she knows what's good for her.
 
2013-03-14 11:20:02 AM

syrynxx: Emposter: Congress can write blatantly unconstitutional laws in direct violation of rulings by SCOTUS, and in fact does so all the time.

What makes me laugh and cry is when people like Sen. Feinstein say things like SCOTUS should assume that all laws passed by a validly-elected legislature are Constitutional.


Well, the court does presume that.  It doesn't examine every law that's passed, only the ones brought to it with arguments and evidence.
 
2013-03-14 02:01:45 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: PsiChick: Lenny_da_Hog: PsiChick: /That said, you've still got a farking stupid argument there. What people say on Fark? No, it's not ever going to be considered in any amount of seriousness. Take it for what it is--random opinions--put out your own, and leave it at that. Make a petition if you're really worried about the issue.

If you'd read the posts I was responding to, you would have seen that we were talking about citing this article the next time someone offered an opinion ignoring DC v. Heller. It's even quoted in your original response.

Do try to keep up.

Lenny_da_Hog: Actually, I was talking about the *crazy* laws being proposed on Fark -- things like having to ask permission of the government, having to qualify with government testing, having to be an active member of the army or national guard, etc., etc.

So, we talk about making fun of things on Fark, and you think we should talk about something else?

Why do you hate Fark? Are you turning here for real problem-solving or something? Do you think this is a think-tank?


...Let's walk through our conversation. First, you posted something about gun-control proponants, which I posted my own rebuttal to. Then you posted the 'crazy laws on Fark' theory. I mistook you for someone in another thread. We cleared that up, and I added that your 'crazy laws on Fark' theory was still not that bright. You then claimed you'd been talking about DC v. Heller, which, yes, you mentioned, but was  not the 'crazy laws on Fark' theory I responded to, as I pointed out by quoting you.

And now your opinion is that...I think we should talk about something else? o.O

moanerific: I'm having trouble finding the hunting clause in the Second Amendment.  Could you point it out to me?

--On Topic:  This guy is retarded.


The Bill of Rights\Constitution is typically taken in context with not only the full text, but other documents by the Founding Fathers and the Supreme Court. (There are those--some of whom are currently  on the Supreme Court, gods help us all--who don't. They tend to rule in favor of very destructive policies.)

In general, the 'fire in a crowded building' rule--that you can't exercise a right that causes harm or harmful disruption to a) individuals or b) the group--is taken to apply to all rights. The 'right' to own any gun you want has been proven to be harmful and harmfully disruptive to the group. Things that are  not harmful to the group, that  would fall under the Second Amendment, are self-defense and hunting, which gun owners cite as the main reasons for wanting to own a gun. Thus, the idea would be to create gun control that does not infringe upon legitimate activities but does create a safe environment for the rest of us. (For example, everyone has the right to not get caught in the crossfire if a CCW holder thinks someone's drawing a gun. But the CCW holder certainly has the right to defend himself--so how do you draw the line? Maybe asking him to carry a baseball bat instead of a gun would be a good line. Maybe not. That's the discussion.)
 
2013-03-14 06:05:25 PM

nmrsnr: To be (more than) fair, in a certain light he can be construed as correct. If you take "constitutional" and "unconstitutional" to be statements of fact instead of opinion, then he is correct to a certain extent. Both Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education cannot, simultaneously, be considered constitutional. This means that, if you believe that something is objectively constitutional or not, either the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson or Brown v. Board of Education declared that something was constitutional when in fact it was not. Now, if you define what is and is not constitutional as "whatever the controlling Supreme Court decision has stated" (you know, the way our government actually works) then the man is clearly an idiot.


It's almost like strict constructivism or positivist law are total shams.  I mean, there's a line (like Plessy contradicted the Constitution so how did it get upheld if not for political reasons?) but to believe there's some exact one answer out there that the Framers had in mind (but never wrote down) just sounds like an excuse to be a dictator.  (ahem) like Scalia.
 
2013-03-14 06:11:15 PM

RexTalionis: DamnYankees: Eh, this isn't that dumb. I think there's a valid point to be made that the Supreme Court doesn't get to decide whether or not one thinks a given law is constitutional or not. It just makes it the law; it doesnt change your personal view of the matter.

Actually, a lot of Tea Party people I know subscribe to the belief that the Supreme Court can't decide on the constitutionality of laws because the Constitution never explicitly gave the Supreme Court that power.

I'm willing to bet you that this interpretation is what Bridenstine meant and not your interpretation.


such a belief doesn't change that you are totally pants on head retarded and wrong to believe that.
 
2013-03-14 08:44:24 PM
FTFA:   The interviewer, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni Thomas, didn't have the heart to correct Bridenstine's peculiar view of the Court's role.

Well, of course.  She would have to get permission from Scalia's wife first.
 
Displayed 143 of 143 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report