Page 3285 of 3285 FirstFirst ... 2285 2785 3185 3235 3275 3283 3284 3285
Results 49,261 to 49,264 of 49264

Thread: Post what you are thinking at this very moment

  1. #49261
    Space-age Hactivist lost in melb.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    11,388
    vCash
    3550
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Thanks
    8,805
    Thanked 4,277 Times in 2,823 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX View Post
    Fox News confirms that Trump will nominate Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    She's supposedly an originalist, so let's hope she doesn't turn out to be another Roberts.
    So the constitutional equivalent of an evangelical Christian?

  2. #49262
    Look Into My Eyes DemonGeminiX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bum Fuck Egypt, East Jabip
    Posts
    56,818
    vCash
    20000
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Thanks
    35,562
    Thanked 12,719 Times in 9,147 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by lost in melb. View Post
    You don't have to answer this, but I'm wondering what you use a printer for?
    I have a scanner/printer combo. I like to print images of my hairy white ass and nutsack and mail them to people I don't like.






    Say, what's your mailing address?

    Quote Originally Posted by lost in melb. View Post
    So the constitutional equivalent of an evangelical Christian?
    The constitution is the law, from sea to shining sea. It wasn't supposed to be reinterpreted on a whim because of people's feelings. If you could do that whenever you felt like it, then what's the point of having a constitution to begin with? If you can reinterpret law whenever you felt like, then what's the point of having a society governed by the rule of law? The law becomes meaningless if you don't hold to it's meaning and intention. The constitution is static. The founding fathers had very particular reasoning and intended meaning for what they wrote. We were given a method for changing the constitution: passing and repealing amendments. Admittedly, passing and repealing amendments is a very difficult thing to do, and that's by design. It can be changed, but if and only if the entire country is on board with the proposed changes. Progressives try to get around that by saying that the constitution can or needs to be reinterpreted for our time without the need for amendments, but that's wrong. It undermines the importance and the value of the constitution. It undermines the concept of a society governed by rule of law. If you wanna call not allowing that evangelical, then so be it, but the justices that sit on the Supreme Court are supposed to be constitutional scholars and they're supposed to understand precisely what the founders intended by what they wrote, and pass judgments on issues that arise based on that. So the justices sitting on the Supreme Court are supposed to be originalists.


    Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.

    Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.

  3. #49263
    Space-age Hactivist lost in melb.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    11,388
    vCash
    3550
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Thanks
    8,805
    Thanked 4,277 Times in 2,823 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX View Post
    I have a scanner/printer combo. I like to print images of my hairy white ass and nutsack and mail them to people I don't like.






    Say, what's your mailing address?







    The constitution is the law, from sea to shining sea. It wasn't supposed to be reinterpreted on a whim because of people's feelings. If you could do that whenever you felt like it, then what's the point of having a constitution to begin with? If you can reinterpret law whenever you felt like, then what's the point of having a society governed by the rule of law? The law becomes meaningless if you don't hold to it's meaning and intention. The constitution is static. The founding fathers had very particular reasoning and intended meaning for what they wrote. We were given a method for changing the constitution: passing and repealing amendments. Admittedly, passing and repealing amendments is a very difficult thing to do, and that's by design. It can be changed, but if and only if the entire country is on board with the proposed changes. Progressives try to get around that by saying that the constitution can or needs to be reinterpreted for our time without the need for amendments, but that's wrong. It undermines the importance and the value of the constitution. It undermines the concept of a society governed by rule of law. If you wanna call not allowing that evangelical, then so be it, but the justices that sit on the Supreme Court are supposed to be constitutional scholars and they're supposed to understand precisely what the founders intended by what they wrote, and pass judgments on issues that arise based on that. So the justices sitting on the Supreme Court are supposed to be originalists.
    I get it and kind of agree. I wonder though what the constitution was before the present one?

    Also, the supreme court has changed major stuff over the years...did they really adhere to the constitution by the letter then?

  4. #49264
    Look Into My Eyes DemonGeminiX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Bum Fuck Egypt, East Jabip
    Posts
    56,818
    vCash
    20000
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Thanks
    35,562
    Thanked 12,719 Times in 9,147 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by lost in melb. View Post


    That made me laugh... jerk.



    I get it and kind of agree. I wonder though what the constitution was before the present one?

    Also, the supreme court has changed major stuff over the years...did they really adhere to the constitution by the letter then?
    If you're talking about documents, then pre-constitution post-Revolution, the founders had the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. The government was decidedly different back then. We had the Congress of the Confederation up until everybody decided that it wasn't working and we needed something new. It's a fascinating thing to read about, but it's far too long to post about in considerable detail.

    The Supreme Court has changed stuff over the years... not really. Congress changes things. They're the legislative branch. Ideally, the Supreme Court is only supposed to rule whether the things that are changed are constitutional or not, or whether the parties involved need to go pound sand back to the lower courts to duke it out on their own. They're not supposed to legislate from the bench, and that's why I had a problem with the whole gay marriage ruling. It's not in their constitutional power to do stuff like that. It should have been left up to the states. Frankly, I didn't give a shit whether gay and lesbian people could get married or not, I just didn't think the Supreme Court had the constitutional authority to say so. And like I said before, the Supreme Court is a political beast. Even though the justices that get put there should be originalists, the majority of the time, they're beholden to their masters, the President and Congress, at least up until they're confirmed for the seat. Obama nominated and got a few activist judges. So did Bill Clinton (RBG was one of Clinton's). Trump, both of the Bush Presidents, and Reagan got conservative judges... not necessarily originalists, mind you, but they were conservative. Gorsuch is more of an originalist, but Kavanaugh is more conservative conscious.

    And no, elected and appointed officials post-founders have been violating the constitution, then reaffirming it again, then violating it again, then reaffirming it again, over and over again since the last of the founding fathers had mostly passed on. It's a frustrating dance to watch.

    I've said this before and I honestly believe it, that if the founding fathers were alive today, they'd execute a whole mess of elected and appointed people, then they'd marvel at how we butchered the English language, marvel at how we got so many things wrong, and probably would set out to rewrite the constitution to make it more clear (as if it actually needed it... but really, you just can't trust people to understand things today).
    Last edited by DemonGeminiX; Today at 11:03 AM.


    Warning: The posts of this forum member may contain trigger language which may be considered offensive to some.

    Music was better when ugly people were allowed to make it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •