- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: And the award for the single worst SCOTUS justice EVER goes to:
Posted on 7/31/23 at 11:28 am to FATBOY TIGER
Posted on 7/31/23 at 11:28 am to FATBOY TIGER
quote:Fats, the Constitution did not come with an instruction manual, telling us what tools should be used to interpret it.
she's there to UP HOLD the constitution.
Personally, I think that the Textualist toolbox is the most-rational. Originalists disagree, where the two schools produce different results. Living Document folks tend to disagree a LOT.
Anyone who thinks that there is only ONE toolbox for interpreting the Constitution ... does not understand Constitutional jurisprudence very well.
I might disagree with their approach, but it is simply juvenile to assert that a Living Document person (or an Originalist) is not "upholding the Constitution," just because they see a different school of interpretation as being more-rational.
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 11:34 am
2
Posted on 7/31/23 at 11:29 am to Wally Sparks
quote:43% over the last decade, with an additional 15% either 8:1 or 7:2.
If there's a 9-0 SCOTUS vote any time soon, I'll be shocked.quote:
Most of them actually are.
Why? The big, sexy cases addressing big Constitutional questions get all the press, but most SCOTUS cases are just interpreting statutes.
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 11:31 am
Posted on 7/31/23 at 11:40 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Fats, the Constitution did not come with an instruction manual, telling us what tools should be used to interpret it.
Hank, I stopped reading here. It's the "interpretation" stuff that has us where we are today.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:07 pm to indianswim
Clarence” Uncle Tom” Thomas
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:10 pm to Wtodd
Absolutely Jackson esp when she cant define a women.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:13 pm to grich31
quote:
Clarence” Uncle Tom” Thomas
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:14 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:I mean no personal offense, but you just proved my point.quote:Hank, I stopped reading here. It's the "interpretation" stuff that has us where we are today.
Fats, the Constitution did not come with an instruction manual, telling us what tools should be used to interpret it.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:18 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
Hank, I stopped reading here. It's the "interpretation" stuff that has us where we are today.
Precisely.
Truth seekers look for facts. Propagandists require interpretation.
Activism destroyed the legal system.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:27 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
the Constitution did not come with an instruction manual, telling us what tools should be used to interpret it.
Not exactly an instruction manual, but the Federalist Papers are close.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:29 pm to Penrod
quote:The FP are obviously quite useful, especially for an Originalist.
Not exactly an instruction manual, but the Federalist Papers are close.
Do the FP tell is whether the Founders were Textualists or Originalists?
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:31 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Truth seekers look for facts. Propagandists require interpretation
Nonsense. There are hundreds of cases in which parts of the constitution suggest one decision and other parts suggest another. Interpretation is absolutely necessary.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:33 pm to Penrod
quote:Roger is a simple man, with a rather simple view of the world.quote:Nonsense. There are hundreds of cases in which parts of the constitution suggest one decision and other parts suggest another. Interpretation is absolutely necessary.
Truth seekers look for facts. Propagandists require interpretation
He reminds me of Archie Bunker, for some reason.
"Meathead" in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 12:42 pm
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:36 pm to AggieHank86
Kelo v City of New London is close to that level, but not quite.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:38 pm to grich31
Racist prick
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:40 pm to Floyd Dawg
quote:In its own way, it was just as bad IMO.quote:Kelo v City of New London is close to that level, but not quite.
get back to me when she writes a "Plessy v Ferguson" or a "Dred Scott v Sandford." THEN she will be in the running for a SERIOUS "worst ever" list.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:48 pm to VoxDawg
quote:Last week with the West Virginia pipeline.
If there's a 9-0 SCOTUS vote any time soon, I'll be shocked.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:53 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
I mean no personal offense, but you just proved my point.
None taken,
quote:
the Constitution did not come with an instruction manual,
Do you know how to use the zipper on your fly?
quote:
telling us what tools should be used to interpret it.
Very weak!
quote:
but you just proved my point.
Did I?
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Roger is a simple man, with a rather simple view of the world.
I'm not the dipshit knighting for a literal waterhead sitting on the court. You would think a legit attorney would hate the takeover of industry by literal idiots.
Interpretation based on activism destroyed the rule of law.
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 7/31/23 at 12:59 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:
Do you know how to use the zipper on your fly?
Hank is a linear thinker. He can only zip his fly with an instruction manual and rating guide.
Posted on 7/31/23 at 1:03 pm to FATBOY TIGER
quote:Parts of the Constitution ARE as simple as that zipper. Minimum age for Senators. Term lengths. That sort of thing.quote:Do you know how to use the zipper on your fly?
the Constitution did not come with an instruction manual,
To the extent that disputes arise on the simple issues, they are resolved FAR below the level of SCOTUS. For the most part, the cases that reach SCOTUS are the cases where the Constitution (or statute) does NOT provide one clear, objective answer ... hence the need for interpretation.
E.g. when there is a conflict between the 14th Amendment and the 1st Amendment, which prevails? You aren't going to find that answer by looking behind your zipper.
This post was edited on 7/31/23 at 1:04 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News