|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 3, 2011 15:54:22 GMT -8
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. You are so rattled, that you don't even realize that you asked no question. Keep fixating on homoeroticism, excrement, and vomit... It's all you have, and descriptive of you. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2011 16:33:22 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? Here you go. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 3, 2011 16:37:37 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? Here you go. Here you go: 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. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 3, 2011 17:00:05 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. Sorry Dave, but you really do seem to have a fascination with anal sex. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Jun 3, 2011 17:31:04 GMT -8
You really are like a dog returning to its vomit, aren't you? You get pwned, and keep coming back for more. Sorry Dave, but you really do seem to have a fascination with anal sex. =Bob And, BTW, I suspect you have that fascination because your wife has never agreed to roll over. Sorry Dave, but I would suggest you take your sexual fantasies elsewhere. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by inevitec on Jun 3, 2011 18:28:13 GMT -8
Originalists have always confounded me, because in order for the originalists to correctly interpret the constitution as they say they want to interpret it, they would have to become images of 18th century men who wrote it. It is impossible for a 18th century interpretative discovery to come from the brain of a 21st century man, even a 16th century poser, like Scalia. They were acculturated differently to a degree that cannot be fully understood.
All originalists really want to do is claim that their 21st century interpretation is the real one and everyone else s is not.
In other words originalism is bull $#!+.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2011 22:14:42 GMT -8
Here you go: 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. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jun 3, 2011 22:23:05 GMT -8
Here you go: 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. His judgment is flawed at best. At worst, he is simply deciding cases to suit his politics. You, I know, say the same of liberal judges. The difference is that liberalism has always been on the right side of history. Conservatives are always proven wrong in the long run. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2011 5:47:11 GMT -8
You really are like a dog returning to its vomit, aren't you? You get pwned, and keep coming back for more. Sorry Dave, but you really do seem to have a fascination with anal sex. =Bob I detect a couple liberals with that problem, and it does not include Dave. Read the thread and you will see a pattern. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jun 4, 2011 5:51:41 GMT -8
Originalists have always confounded me, because in order for the originalists to correctly interpret the constitution as they say they want to interpret it, they would have to become images of 18th century men who wrote it. It is impossible for a 18th century interpretative discovery to come from the brain of a 21st century man, even a 16th century poser, like Scalia. They were acculturated differently to a degree that cannot be fully understood. All originalists really want to do is claim that their 21st century interpretation is the real one and everyone else s is not. In other words originalism is bull $#!+. You may be wrong on the facts here, but you get very high marks for sifting through the smut from =small from Hillcrest and getting back on topic. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 4, 2011 14:21:44 GMT -8
You really are like a dog returning to its vomit, aren't you? You get pwned, and keep coming back for more. Sorry Dave, but you really do seem to have a fascination with anal sex. =Bob It is really quite simple. Words which would adequately explain the depth of my contempt for the left do not exist. So, I choose the most vile ones I can find in order to at least come close. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jun 4, 2011 14:43:52 GMT -8
Here you go: 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. His judgment is flawed at best. At worst, he is simply deciding cases to suit his politics. You, I know, say the same of liberal judges. The difference is that liberalism has always been on the right side of history. Conservatives are always proven wrong in the long run. You can think what you will of his judgment, that's fine. But you chose to open this thread with a hyperbolic gob of snot written by a rabidly left wing history professor, who obviously thinks he knows what Scalia "thinks", and you carry that gob to a conclusion that Scalia is "channelling" the founders, and thinks he "knows" what was in their minds. I have offered passages from his essay in which he tries to explain the process used in textual interpretation. I recommended that you go to the source (his essay) to understand the process, the accepted canons of construction that all judges are familiar with and how he observed that there can certainly be disagreement. You hate Scalia, fine! At least try to understand what the process is, and how he tries to reach a reasonable construction of the text. He's been labeled a "strict" constructionist, but he's not. If you were to read the essay, you would find him saying, "I am not a strict constructionist, and no one ought to be." Don't rely on Saul Cornell to tell you, go to the source. |
|
