Alaskan Politics (statewide and nationwide) (Wasilla, Anderson: opportunities, letter, similar)

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Siouxcia

Scalia is a 'originalist' yet even he acknowledges that the interpretations of the Constitution can and do differ from one 'originalist'/'interpreter' to the other.

The Framers' wrote a document that was appropriate for that time in history. It's broadness opens it up to 'interpretation'/'changing with the times' as, IMHO, the Framers meant it to be. To believe that the Framers were so narrow minded, short-sighted to believe the world as they knew it was status quo is not only incredulous but insulting to the intellect of those great men.

Ergo, IMHO, the Constitution is a living, breathing document. Great men were the Framers of the US Constitution.

I understand what you have said. But my points are as follows: while one side believes that the Constitution is a living document, the other side does not. It does not make one side "a stooge of monied interest" over the other side. While Scalia is an originalist, he says that issues such as abortion and other things not found in the Constitution can be realized at the legislative level. These are the ones who should create laws, not the courts.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

I understand what you have said. But my points are as follows: while one side believes that the Constitution is a living document, the other side does not.

.

And as I pointed out, that is not true.

[Moose Whisperer]

The claim that the Constitution is a “living document” is just a leftist euphemism for:

“We don’t like all of the freedoms those right-wing rubes enjoy (owning guns, freely criticizing leftists, etc.) so we need to be able to delete some.”

Funny, I’ve looked at the Constitution several times, even examined the original at the National Archives, and I don’t see the word DRAFT written in watermark anywhere on the page.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.

If you saw brother Antonin on CBS a few weeks back, you would have seen him lamenting the fact that he has not been able to convince any other Justice (other than Thomas) that originalsim is a valid school of legal thought.
Due to the last 2 appointments (proving that not only elections have consequences, but stolen elections do also) the court has tipped to the far Right.
But as any observer of said court will tell ya, it does follow election results.

The last two elections were stolen? How about the two other elections prior? Were these two stolen? I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should call Art Bell, or maybe the Coast TO Coast radio show.

Doesn't it take the President plus Congress to appoint judges to the Supreme Court? Now should Obama had gotten a super-majority in Congress, he could have appointed even judges serving at the United Nations, if that's what he wanted.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

The claim that the Constitution is a “living document” is just a leftist euphemism for:

“We don’t like all of the freedoms those right-wing rubes enjoy (owning guns, freely criticizing leftists, etc.) so we need to be able to delete some.”

Funny, I’ve looked at the Constitution several times, even examined the original at the National Archives, and I don’t see the word DRAFT written in watermark anywhere on the page.

If you don't read the court decisions and legislation surrounding it, then you do not understand how our legal system works.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Geechie North

.

And as I pointed out, that is not true.

And that's your "true," not the other side's.

[JavaPhil]

Originalists have their place also in the make-up of the bench. Yes, the document is a "living" document. The analogy is this:

A ship is in dire need of repairs. Piece by piece, they replace the frame, sides and masts. The wood removed is used to build another ship. The ship from which it was removed is all new. Is it the same ship? The wood removed and used to build another ship. Does that make it the original ship?

The "original" is still the first. But the design remains the same. The Bill of Rights is, IMO, the frame to which all of the other laws are attached. A logical extension of that frame, if you will. New issues come up every day. Interpretation of the intent of the writers of this document is the business of the Supreme Court.

Without "originalists", there are no brakes on the liberal portions of the court. I know that the writers of the Constitution could not foresee every detail, and every glitch to occur in the law. Lacking more than rudimentary classes in Business Law, I can not begin to understand constitutional law. I, therefore, am not qualified to say what might and might not be wrong with certain decisions. Even if my first gut instinct says that it is wrong.

I have always said that I am a centrist conservative. Yes I am a registered Republican. I am also concerned with the make-up of the Supreme Court, and I am actually wanting to see a new liberal placed on the bench, to maintain the checks and balances.

I have always voted Republican, but have usually found that issues decide where I want my vote to be placed. I was severely disapppointed with the election of Clinton into office, but aside from his sexual peccadillos, found him to be a decent President. I will never admire him as I do so many other Presidents because of his love affair with his hoo-hoo, but he wasn't Warren G. Harding either.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

The last two elections were stolen? How about the two other elections prior? Were these two stolen? I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should call Art Bell, or maybe the Coast TO Coast radio show.

Doesn't it take the President plus Congress to appoint judges to the Supreme Court? Now should Obama had gotten a super-majority in Congress, he could have appointed even judges serving at the United Nations, if that's what he wanted.

.

Fla 2000.

Bush V Gore. So "special" that the court said its decision there could NOT be used as precedent.

Ohio 2004:

http://www.openelections.org/lib/downloads/references/house_judiciary/final_status_report.pdf (broken link)

Note the probability of the reported vote totals NOT being rigged:

1: 100,000.

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

And that's your "true," not the other side's.

.

Here's an article which speaks to what is true, and who believes it:



****** Comparative Law, Originalism and the Role of a Judge in a Democracy: A Reply to Justice Scalia - final version without opening remarks to Fulbright Conference - 29/01/06- for distribution

[Geechie North]

Originally Posted by JavaPhil

Originalists have their place also in the make-up of the bench. Yes, the document is a "living" document. The analogy is this:

A ship is in dire need of repairs. Piece by piece, they replace the frame, sides and masts. The wood removed is used to build another ship. The ship from which it was removed is all new. Is it the same ship? The wood removed and used to build another ship. Does that make it the original ship?

The "original" is still the first. But the design remains the same. The Bill of Rights is, IMO, the frame to which all of the other laws are attached. A logical extension of that frame, if you will. New issues come up every day. Interpretation of the intent of the writers of this document is the business of the Supreme Court.

Without "originalists", there are no brakes on the liberal portions of the court. I know that the writers of the Constitution could not foresee every detail, and every glitch to occur in the law. Lacking more than rudimentary classes in Business Law, I can not begin to understand constitutional law. I, therefore, am not qualified to say what might and might not be wrong with certain decisions. Even if my first gut instinct says that it is wrong.

I have always said that I am a centrist conservative. Yes I am a registered Republican. I am also concerned with the make-up of the Supreme Court, and I am actually wanting to see a new liberal placed on the bench, to maintain the checks and balances.

I have always voted Republican, but have usually found that issues decide where I want my vote to be placed. I was severely disapppointed with the election of Clinton into office, but aside from his sexual peccadillos, found him to be a decent President. I will never admire him as I do so many other Presidents because of his love affair with his hoo-hoo, but he wasn't Warren G. Harding either.

.

Excellent post, in my opinion.
I believe that you've got the pulse of the what the Framers envisioned to a tee.