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  
•       •       •

7546 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 43 of 143 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report