|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 31, 2011 13:54:37 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 31, 2011 14:28:15 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 31, 2011 14:38:49 GMT -8
Yawn, unable to form an cogent comment, eh? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on May 31, 2011 14:48:57 GMT -8
Yawn, unable to form an cogent comment, eh? No need. Slime sites like "alternet" aren't interested in "cogency". BTW, the article you cite on that slime site was written by Saul Cornell, and its main point is to disparage the *DC v Heller* decision which affirmed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Saul Cornell and his left wing acolytes have been dealt with "cogently" in the past. volokh.com/posts/1173746455.shtml |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on May 31, 2011 16:05:44 GMT -8
I have a similar view as Davedsid, but will not voice an opinion on the source, just the content. I really see very little to support this guy's opinion and disagree with his point of view. He goes to considerable length to rant on his take of the Court's view on interpetation of The Constitution when what he really had on his agenda was an anti gun rant.
Even should a dim person be swayed by that long boring rant on how Constitution should be viewed, it would not change anything about our right to have arms.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on May 31, 2011 19:59:28 GMT -8
The case is not the point of article. It is an example of the fallacy of the doctrine of original intent. If Hamilton and Madison could not agree on the meaning, and they had been allys at the Convention and were the principal authors of The Federalist Papers, how does Scalia know?
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jun 1, 2011 8:51:50 GMT -8
I thought his comments on Justice Scalia’s dyslexia quite interesting.  |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 1, 2011 13:11:34 GMT -8
The case is not the point of article. It is an example of the fallacy of the doctrine of original intent. If Hamilton and Madison could not agree on the meaning, and they had been allys at the Convention and were the principal authors of The Federalist Papers, how does Scalia know? I don't believe Scalia thinks "he knows". If you want to know his approach to interpreting constitutional (and statutory) texts, get ahold of a copy of his book "A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law", Princeton University Press, 1997. You will find Scalia saying, "What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended." And, "There is plenty of room for disagreement as to what original meaning was, and even more as to how that original meaning applies to the situation before the court. But the originalist at least knows what he is looking for: the original meaning of the text. Often - indeed I dare say, usually - that is easy to discern and simple to apply. Sometimes...there will be disagreement regarding the original meaning; and sometimes there will be disagreement as to how that original meaning applies to new and unforseen phenomena." The book contains comments from Professors Amy Gutmann, Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, with responses to each by Scalia. I think you will get a more accurate understanding of Scalia's views in this book than you will from the writings of a barking moonbat like Saul Cornell. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 1, 2011 17:11:10 GMT -8
Thanks, davdesid, for the book recommendation. It appears that must think he knows, your quote has him saying that original meaning of the Constitution "is easy to discern". At least for him, I guess the rest of us are in disagreement. Please explain the first qoute. It seems folly to me, to ignore what the drafters intended. Frankly, I think Scalia is the barking moonbat.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 2, 2011 13:03:04 GMT -8
Thanks, davdesid, for the book recommendation. It appears that must think he knows, your quote has him saying that original meaning of the Constitution "is easy to discern". At least for him, I guess the rest of us are in disagreement. Please explain the first qoute. It seems folly to me, to ignore what the drafters intended. Frankly, I think Scalia is the barking moonbat. From Scalia's essay: "It is curious that most of those who insist that the drafter's intent gives meaning to a statute reject the drafter's intent as the criterion for interpretation of the Constitution. I reject it for both. I will consult the writings of some men who happened to be delegates to the Constitutional Convention - Hamilton's and Madison's writing in *The Federalist*, for example. I do so, however, not because they were Framers and therefore their intent is authoritative and must be the law; but rather because their writings, like those of other intelligent and informed people of the time, display how the text of the Constitution was originally understood. Thus I give equal weight to Jay's pieces in *The Federalist*, and to Jefferson's writings, even though neither of them was a Framer." "We look for a sort of "objectified" intent - the intent that a reasonable person would gather from the text of the law, placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris." "And the reason we adopt this objectified version is, I think, that it is simply incompatible with democratic government, or indeed, even with fair government, to have the meaning of a law determined by what the lawgiver meant, rather than what the lawgiver promulgated. That seems to me one step worse than the trick the emperor Nero was said to engage in: posting edicts high up on the pillars, so that they could not be easily read. Government by unexpressed intent is similarly tyrannical. It is the LAW that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver. That seems to me the essence of the famous American ideal set forth in the Massachussets constitution: A government of laws, not men. Men may intend what they will; but it is only the laws that they enact which bind us." Cornell basically says no one can know for sure what the words mean, so just throw it all out and let the judges make it up as they go long. No pesky Article V to have to deal with. Libtards love that idea. So long as they get their ideologues on the bench, we'll all live in a utopia. A good takedown of Cornell's moon-battery is here: proteinwisdom.com/?p=27948 |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 2, 2011 15:04:12 GMT -8
That is the stupidest thing I have heard. Scalia somehow can channel the "intelligent and informed people of the time" and discern the meaning of the Constitution. All Scalia is doing is twisting the Constitution to suit his politics. He does exactly what you accuse liberal judges of doing. He is the epitome of an activist judge. He is a danger to true values of this great country.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 2, 2011 15:25:52 GMT -8
That is the stupidest thing I have heard. Scalia somehow can channel the "intelligent and informed people of the time" and discern the meaning of the Constitution. All Scalia is doing is twisting the Constitution to suit his politics. He does exactly what you accuse liberal judges of doing. He is the epitome of an activist judge. He is a danger to true values of this great country. That's not what he says. Referring to contemporaneous sources for information is not "channeling". The real danger to the values of the country is people like you and Cornell, who would toss the Constitution in the trash, because you say the words cannot be understood, and let judges make up whatever they think is right and good, and make up a whole body of law with no interference from the legislatures, or (God forbid) the people. As the article I linked, and you obviously didn't bother to read, states: "...you have essentially concluded that the Constitution as a thing has no actual ontology as a legally binding, ratified document — that it is merely a set of squiggles that you use as a baseline from which to do as you please, provided you can get the squiggles to suggest what you wish them to suggest, and provided you can appoint a majority of philosopher kings to pretend to agree for the sake of making the changes they wish to see made. Insisting otherwise, therefore — that is, to take a “right wing” approach — comes to count as “destroying this country” by dint of blocking “progressive” attempts to make wholesale changes to founding legal principles without having to go through the messy, arduous process of amending the Constitution." |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 2, 2011 17:49:34 GMT -8
Back to the issue. Hamilton and Madison disagreed on the meaning, Scalia thinks he knows. Egotistical rot.
|
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 3, 2011 12:57:55 GMT -8
Back to the issue. Hamilton and Madison disagreed on the meaning, Scalia thinks he knows. Egotistical rot. No he doesn't. If you read his essay, you'll know that. He says that the process is assuredly not cut-and-dried but requires the exercise of judgment. That's what we pay judges and justices to do. In any case, Cornoll has been rebutted. Find another subject to troll. But please do find one at least as hyperbolic as "right-wing is destroying the country". Maybe Harold Camping can give you some guidance. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2011 13:40:40 GMT -8
Back to the issue. Hamilton and Madison disagreed on the meaning, Scalia thinks he knows. Egotistical rot. No he doesn't. If you read his essay, you'll know that. He says that the process is assuredly not cut-and-dried but requires the exercise of judgment. That's what we pay judges and justices to do. In any case, Cornoll has been rebutted. Find another subject to troll. But please do find one at least as hyperbolic as "right-wing is destroying the country". Maybe Harold Camping can give you some guidance. Conservatives are ruining our great country. I will tell you so everyday of the week. If Scalia left the bench it would improve our country. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 3, 2011 13:53:24 GMT -8
No he doesn't. If you read his essay, you'll know that. He says that the process is assuredly not cut-and-dried but requires the exercise of judgment. That's what we pay judges and justices to do. In any case, Cornoll has been rebutted. Find another subject to troll. But please do find one at least as hyperbolic as "right-wing is destroying the country". Maybe Harold Camping can give you some guidance. Conservatives are ruining our great country. I will tell you so everyday of the week. If Scalia left the bench it would improve our country. Oh! Brother! |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 3, 2011 13:55:49 GMT -8
No he doesn't. If you read his essay, you'll know that. He says that the process is assuredly not cut-and-dried but requires the exercise of judgment. That's what we pay judges and justices to do. In any case, Cornoll has been rebutted. Find another subject to troll. But please do find one at least as hyperbolic as "right-wing is destroying the country". Maybe Harold Camping can give you some guidance. Conservatives are ruining our great country. I will tell you so everyday of the week. If Scalia left the bench it would improve our country. Libtards are ruining our great country. I will tell you so every day of the week. If Breyer, or Sodomizer, or Kagan, or Ginsburg left the bench it would improve our country.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2011 15:14:14 GMT -8
Conservatives are ruining our great country. I will tell you so everyday of the week. If Scalia left the bench it would improve our country. Libtards are ruining our great country. I will tell you so every day of the week. If Breyer, or Sodomizer, or Kagan, or Ginsburg left the bench it would improve our country. Your fascination with anal sex and excrement in general says a lot about you. Makes me wonder what kind of issues you have. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 3, 2011 15:24:03 GMT -8
Libtards are ruining our great country. I will tell you so every day of the week. If Breyer, or Sodomizer, or Kagan, or Ginsburg left the bench it would improve our country. Your fascination with anal sex and excrement in general says a lot about you. Makes me wonder what kind of issues you have. You really are like a dog returning to its vomit, aren't you? You get pwned, and keep coming back for more. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2011 15:35:07 GMT -8
Your fascination with anal sex and excrement in general says a lot about you. Makes me wonder what kind of issues you have. You really are like a dog returning to its vomit, aren't you? You get pwned, and keep coming back for more. LOL You are the one that can't answer my question. When you can't, you fall back on homoeroticism, excrement and now vomit. You are one sick puppy. Pardon the pun. |
|
