Alaskan Politics (statewide and nationwide) (Fairbanks, College: mechanic, percentages, graduation)

[Grannysroost]

you guys pee me off....this place has been rather calm and no major fights, everyone gives and takes...short of NT..inceland, where the flock is it....now going off again...welcome to Alaska...this is what it is...I am starting to wonder....QUIT calling people names, ....have a conversation in English....or go to your flippin corners, are we not better than the rest...please tell me we are..we can agree to disagree...but name calling does not do it...we have more tact than that...think about it...pleez....

[Grannysroost]

Bring up issues to question.....topics to hit...if really read what people are saying...is pretty much the same, everyone is scared as to what is going to happen...name-calling does not fix it...

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Floyd_Davidson

1) We have never had a judge who was not a "constitutionalist".

2) We have never applied our laws equally.

3) Therefore, it would seem your suggestion is not valid logic.

Well, at least one judge does not agree with you, and that's Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Read his articles about who should create laws (legislators), and about judges legislating from the bench, which is clearly unconstitutional.

[HighlandLady]

Originally Posted by Grannysroost

you guys pee me off....this place has been rather calm and no major fights, everyone gives and takes...short of NT..inceland, where the flock is it....now going off again...welcome to Alaska...this is what it is...I am starting to wonder....QUIT calling people names, ....have a conversation in English....or go to your flippin corners, are we not better than the rest...please tell me we are..we can agree to disagree...but name calling does not do it...we have more tact than that...think about it...pleez....

Bless your heart, Deb...I agree wholeheartedly.

[Grannysroost]

Originally Posted by Grannysroost

you guys pee me off....this place has been rather calm and no major fights, everyone gives and takes...short of NT..inceland, where the flock is it....now going off again...welcome to Alaska...this is what it is...I am starting to wonder....QUIT calling people names, ....have a conversation in English....or go to your flippin corners, are we not better than the rest...please tell me we are..we can agree to disagree...but name calling does not do it...we have more tact than that...think about it...pleez....

Thanks Cori....I know Alaska has more couth (sp) than this and give me a break...I think at least this forum can rise above the rest....no name calling, we are flockin adults....roll call yay or nay.....

[aurorawatcher]

I agree.

[Siouxcia]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Well, at least one judge does not agree with you, and that's Supreme Court Justice Scalia. Read his articles about who should create laws (legislators), and about judges legislating from the bench, which is clearly unconstitutional.

He is considered an 'originalist' and he isn't the only one sitting on the SC. They have been known to disagree which tells me there is no perfect '.....ist'. It's all still up to interpretation and who you are as a person ultimately plays a role in that interpretation. That does result in inequality in enforcing the laws of the land.

'What did the Framers mean?' 'Well I say they meant....'
'No, you're wrong, they meant.....'

For an Originalist, however, the text is the beginning of the inquiry, and two Originalists might reach very different results, not only from the Strict Constructionist, but from each other. "Originalists can reach different results in the same case" (see What Originalism is Not — Originalism is not always an answer in and of itself, infra); one originalist might look at the context in which the clause was written, and might discover that the punishments listed in the clause were the only forms of capital punishment in use at that time, and the only forms of capital punishment that had ever been used at the time of ratification. An originalist might therefore conclude that capital punishment in general—including those methods for it invented since ratification, such as the electric chair—are not constitutional. Another originalist may look at the text and see that the writers created a list. He would assume that the Congress intended this to be an exhaustive list of objectionable executions. Otherwise, they would have banned capital punishment as a whole, instead of listing specific means of punishment. He would rule that other forms of execution are constitutional.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia

As to the criticism that ideology drives the Supreme Court, Scalia disagreed, saying, “Originalism does not invite the judge to make law what he thinks it should be. The historical evidence is sometimes indeterminate or subject to competing interpretation, but it’s not infinitely malleable.” He added, “The honest originalist will sometimes, indeed often, reach a substantive result he does not personally favor,” while the same cannot be said of Constitutional consequentialists.

[Siouxcia]

Originally Posted by Grannysroost

Thanks Cori....I know Alaska has more couth (sp) than this and give me a break...I think at least this forum can rise above the rest....no name calling, we are flockin adults....roll call yay or nay.....

Yay, but ..... OK, no buts.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

Well, at least one judge does not agree with you, and that's Supreme Court Justice Scalia.

If you think Scalia disagees, you need a new pair of glasses and some time to read it again.

Regardless of that, Scalia is ridiculous and votes a political ideology whenever he see's fit. If you want to see something really hilarious, Scalia and Breyer did a sit down discussion for NPR or someone, I forget exactly who. Breyer literally makes Scalia appear to be a first grader when it comes to Constitutional Law.

[Rance]