Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Dumbass, Jim Bridenstine, Republican, Oklahoma, Lilly Ledbetter, reproductive rights  
•       •       •

7558 clicks; posted to Politics » on 13 Mar 2013 at 7:35 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 143 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report