Quote :

"And don't even get me started on many liberals often ignoring or even denying over the years rights listed in the Second Amendment, the Ninth Amendment, and the Tenth Amendment."

Again, there's a difference between "ignoring" and "interpreting differently from you." I love my guns and don't intend to give them up, but I can see how the bit about a well-regulated militia might give one the impression that regulations are acceptable. I don't leap to the conclusion that someone who thinks that ignores, hates, or disregards the constitution.

And there's that pesky "necessary and proper" clause that allows readers of the constitution to think that maybe there's a chance that Congress is allowed more to do more than sit around and scratch its balls.

As to your assertion that there are some people who actually do ignore the Constitution, well, I agree that there are crazy people that live in this country. But to attribute to the progressive movement -- wrong as it may be -- the characteristics of a few extreme individuals is just inane.

7/1/2010 4:11:16 PM

Quote :

"Fuck you, man. It's not "Your way or the highway." It is possible for two people to read the same document and come up with two different interpretations. It doesn't mean that the other guy is ignoring the document or throwing it out the window. Jesus it's obnoxious when people talk like this. It's like a few years back when it was "if you oppose the war then you don't support our troops" or, God forbid, "if you don't like the president then you're unamerican." "

It's not even close to same thing. There's a reason I point to the 10th amendment so often. All powers not mentioned by the Constitution are given to the states or the people. How do you interpret that?

As for necessary and proper, general welfare, interstate commerce, and all that jazz...why would we even have a Constitution if those things were meant to say, "yeah Congress, do whatever you feel is right at the time."

Quote :

"I'm glad you know more about the legitimate interpretation of the Constitution than constitutional law scholars, which don't have a consensus view. I'm having trouble taking you seriously when you make grand pronouncements like this."

I don't need to be a constitutional law scholar to read the document and understand it. I'm sure the people that make a buck off of producing tortured interpretations of the Constitution are going to disagree with me, but the document was meant to be in plain English and understood easily by lay people, not requiring elite scholars to properly decipher.

7/1/2010 4:45:51 PM

^ Hear, hear!

7/1/2010 5:07:17 PM

Quote :

"As for necessary and proper, general welfare, interstate commerce, and all that jazz...why would we even have a Constitution if those things were meant to say, "yeah Congress, do whatever you feel is right at the time.""

Keep in mind that the Constitution lays out three co-equal branches of government. The Congress has the right, as you say, to "do whatever it feels is right at the time." And the Supreme Court has the right to say, "no, fuck you." You seem to be suggesting that you'd rather prevent the Congress from testing those Constitutional limits.

7/1/2010 5:12:45 PM

In addition to specific amendments, this is what liberals often forget or ignore--note well the position of the Constitution.

7/1/2010 5:31:16 PM

^ I disagree that liberals forget or ignore it.

7/1/2010 5:34:12 PM

Quote :

"The Constitution sucks. It's like 200 years old man."

God

message_topic.aspx?topic=574051&page=7

7/1/2010 6:06:54 PM

I think we can agree that God does not speak for all liberals.

7/1/2010 6:33:50 PM

^ Who does? And I indicated as much:

Quote :

"I've certainly seen at least one thread here--not that this forum is a good indicator of mainstream liberal thought--in which some were acting as if the Constitution is just a dusty old document that has outlived its usefulness."

7/1/2010 6:44:27 PM

Quote :

"Keep in mind that the Constitution lays out three co-equal branches of government. The Congress has the right, as you say, to "do whatever it feels is right at the time." And the Supreme Court has the right to say, "no, fuck you." You seem to be suggesting that you'd rather prevent the Congress from testing those Constitutional limits."

Well, SCOTUS can only say "fuck you" if a case makes it through the lower courts and the docket. It's not like the justices can just strike down a law at any time if they think it's unconstitutional. Even if it does make it to SCOTUS, many of those justices are not concerned with the constitutionality of a statute, they're concerned with molding American law to fit their vision of a perfect society.

The President could strike down an unconstitutional bill by vetoing it. Somehow, I don't see Obama doing that anytime soon. Does anyone else? Nancy Pelosi, when asked where in the Constitution the federal government was authorized to provide universal healthcare (or something along those lines), laughed it off, and nonchalantly pointed to the general welfare clause.

Checks and balance don't work so great when two branches disregard the Constitution in its entirety, and decisions are being made 5-4 in the Supreme Court to uphold it. That's the danger of putting another one of these non-originalists in the Supreme Court for life. Unfortunately, it's probably going to happen anyway.

7/1/2010 7:15:18 PM

Quote :

"strict interpretation is the only valid interpretation. If a law is bad change the law. Allowing loose interpretations creates inequal justice."

7/1/2010 7:37:11 PM

^ you realize if that were the common practice, instead of writing laws designed to be interpreted by a court system, then legislators would just be changing the constitution willy-nilly instead of just ignoring it? That seems more dangerous than ignoring it at the peril of a legal challenge.

Quote :

"Even if it does make it to SCOTUS, many of those justices are not concerned with the constitutionality of a statute, they're concerned with molding American law to fit their vision of a perfect society. "

wow, this is a pretty bold statement... you're drifting into salisburyboy territory here...

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 8:04 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2010 8:02:59 PM

What do you think people mean when they say "activist judges"?

Quote :

"^ you realize if that were the common practice, instead of writing laws designed to be interpreted by a court system, then legislators would just be changing the constitution willy-nilly instead of just ignoring it? That seems more dangerous than ignoring it at the peril of a legal challenge."

You're familiar with the amendment process, right?

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 8:08 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2010 8:07:27 PM

Quote :

"What do you think people mean when they say "activist judges"?"

Code for "I don't like what that judge thinks." Nothing more.

7/1/2010 8:11:22 PM

In other words, you have no idea what they mean.

7/1/2010 8:13:29 PM

I know perfectly well that the only people that use them are conservatives, and only when they disagree with a judge. It's code for "this judge is in favor of gay marriage, abortion rights, and banning guns," regardless of if any of that is true or justifiable.

7/1/2010 8:15:17 PM

^^^^ you don't think the amendment process could be amended (didn't California do this with their constitution)?

Has there been ANY democratic government EVER that has remained stagnant from its roots? Is that even possible for a human institution where there's plenty of hands in the pot?


[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 8:20 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2010 8:19:19 PM

Quote :

"I know perfectly well that the only people that use them are conservatives, and only when they disagree with a judge. It's code for "this judge is in favor of gay marriage, abortion rights, and banning guns," regardless of if any of that is true or justifiable."

Do yourself a favor and search for "judicial activism" on Wikipedia.

Quote :

"you don't think the amendment process could be amended (didn't California do this with their constitution)?"

It could be, but it'd have to be non-controversial. The point of bringing up the amendment process is that it's very hard to amend the Constitution. For instance, the idea that we were going to ban gay marriage in the Constitution was a farce from the get go, because it never could have happened. It would take overwhelming bipartisan support to get that done. The only point was to ramp up support among bigots, "traditional conservatives," and Christians.

I'm not suggesting that it's impossible for a bad amendment to be made. You'd have to get two thirds support from both houses, and then it'd have to be approved by the states as well. It's a lot harder to get that kind of support than just getting a 1% majority in the House and the Senate. It's better to err on the side of it being "too hard" to pass laws than "too easy." I don't care what your political leanings are, you should probably agree with that much, because when the party you hate gets in power, you don't want it to be easy for them to pass bullshit laws.

Quote :

"Has there been ANY democratic government EVER that has remained stagnant from its roots? Is that even possible for a human institution where there's plenty of hands in the pot?"

No, of course not. Ours is no exception. That's why there is an amendment process.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." I think he was right. Ideally, people should be going into politics to serve the people. Perhaps some people do get into politics for that reason. However, once they get into office, their primary concern is not serving the people, but serving themselves. The Constitution serves as a barrier to that natural human behavior. It does not serve that purpose if it's ignored or subverted.

7/1/2010 8:40:04 PM

Quote :

"As for necessary and proper, general welfare, interstate commerce, and all that jazz...why would we even have a Constitution if those things were meant to say, "yeah Congress, do whatever you feel is right at the time.""

Sounds like they fucked up when they included a bunch of broad and vague enumerated powers only to say "just kidding" with the 10th amendment. So maybe we should all stop trying to strictly interpret it.

Also, no one is ever going to repeal the 10th amendment through an amendment process. We don't need to because it's already been interpreted away by years of precedent.

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 8:40 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2010 8:40:13 PM

^^ right on.

Now for ya'll other folks, im not saying ammendments are bad, im saying loose interpretations create inequalities.

I mean, think about it from a regular law perspective. Our drug laws are a great example. Imagine you're a well off white kid and you get caught with a decent ammount of pot. You've got a good lawyer and he pitches some speech about how you're just an innocent college kid and its not really a crime, right? I mean obama's gonna legalize it! Heck its even legal for medical use already!! So you get off with a minor sentence, maybe some community service.

Now imagine same situation but you're a poor black dude. You cant afford a good lawyer. Even if you could you're not gonna get sympathy from a white ass jury like in the first situation. So the judge comes in and gets all huffy and hands down some jail time because he wants to set an example or some bullshit. You are fucked.

Its even worse because the black guy has no voice in politics. If he says "hey look at this shit im getting unequal justice!" everyone ignores him. As long as the white guy isn't affected by the law it never changes.

But if you started jailing white kids for that shit the law would disapear from the books in days.

Thats what im talking about when i mean loose interpretation leads to inequal justice. You may think that when that first person gets off that our laws are outdated and its the right thing™, but its not. Enforce the law equally, fix it when its bad.



[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 10:03 PM. Reason : g]

7/1/2010 10:01:52 PM

^ the law is written to be enforced equally.

You want to pass another saying "hey guys, we're SERIOUS about this law... really" or to make it a zero-tolerance policy?

What you seem to be arguing for is "social engineering," which is 90% of what politicians do anyway, to try and get people in your example to not be racist and enforce the law properly.

There's is no legislative solution to the problem you describe. That's a human problem, not a legal one.

And if you've ever read a dissenting opinion to supreme court rulings, they clearly don't think they're taking a more loose interpretation of the constitution. They just view their interpretation as strict in a different way. The fact that you even perceive one side as being more "loose" than the other is a skewing of reality by the right-wing media, or your own bias.

Congress may not take the Constitution seriously, but the judiciary typically does.

[Edited on July 1, 2010 at 10:08 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2010 10:05:58 PM

im not calling for a legislative solution, im saying whereever possible put people in place who will best uphold the law as written. And in the case of the supreme court that means a strict interpretation of the text. I dont see why anyone is so upset by that anyhow. A strict interpretation ensures maximum personal freedom which i would hope you're in favor of.

7/1/2010 10:10:17 PM

Quote :

"As for necessary and proper, general welfare, interstate commerce, and all that jazz...why would we even have a Constitution if those things were meant to say, "yeah Congress, do whatever you feel is right at the time.""

I didn't say that the Constitution gave everyone a blank check; I said that one can find room for difference without being an opponent of the constitution itself.

We can debate individual terms later; right now, though, you're acting like everyone who disagrees with you is an asshole who hates the document.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 2:45 AM. Reason : omg i missed some letters]

7/2/2010 2:44:09 AM

I think there was once a Bill being considered which would've required congress to site the specific part of the Constitution that grants the authority for each piece of legislation.

7/2/2010 11:05:12 AM

First of all, the US is the oldest constitutional republic ever, in the entire history of the human race. That in and of itself is an amazing thing.

Second, the US Constitution is intended to be a framework that can be interpreted or amended. the only way the Constitutional Convention was able to get all 13 states to ratify it was to leave many aspects vague and unsettled.

the States at the time had extremely divergent opinions on many fundamental issues, and the entire Constitution was a compromise. The framers constructed the Constitution in the way they did because they fully expected that their current debates would be settled in one way or another by future generations.

Third, the Congress by design was intended to be able to act fast (relatively) based on the will of the people their members represented. Since public opinion is a fickle thing, the Supreme Court was intended to have a long-term view so that laws were ultimately constitutional as it is interpreted and amended.

7/2/2010 12:33:50 PM

Quote :

"Third, the Congress by design was intended to be able to act fast (relatively) based on the will of the people their members represented."

True, but only within the confines of the powers delegated by the constitution. As you said, public opinion is fickle and the design of the constitution makes acting within granted powers smooth and easy, and (is supposed to) make the process of expanding or changing the powers granted a slow and thoughtful process. Instead, we live in a world where powers are expanded as easily as signing a law and leave it for the long drawn out court battles to take back lost ground.

7/2/2010 12:46:31 PM

Quote :

"^ I disagree that liberals forget or ignore it."

same here
that would rather be the conservatives' stock in trade

cf. warrantless wiretapping, torture, indefinite detention without charges, and Arizona acting like it has the power to enforce immigration law


I hope Ginsburg steps down next year to help Obama further refresh the liberal side and that then Kennedy and/or Scalia goes away during a Democratic (possibly Obama?) administration; the only good ruling that clearly came from the right wing was that the Second Amendment speaks of an individual right, and now that that's over with we could use less of a court that errs on the side of the rich, powerful, and Fundamentalist-approved.

[Edited on July 2, 2010 at 8:48 PM. Reason : Olson and Boies barely stand a chance.

7/2/2010 8:43:59 PM

Obama and Supreme Court may be on collision course

http://www.latimes.com/news/health/la-na-court-roberts-obama-20100706,0,7184862.story

The bizarre thing about this article is that it accuses the conservative majority in the Supreme Court of "judicial activism" for upholding the Constitution. I don't get it. If it turns out that a law (say, a gun law, or campaign funding law) is unconstitutional, it has to be overturned. That's not judicial activism. I'm wondering if people even know what the phrase means, or they're intentionally obfuscating the subject for the sake of confusing people that don't know any better.

In another article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-kagan-confirmation-20100706,0,5603954.story), it talks a lot about the desirability of a Justice to uphold "settled law." Why is that what we should asking for? There's a lot of bad laws in this country that were made decades ago. We should repeal them; if Congress is unwilling to do that, the Supreme Court should reject them. That's not judicial activism - that's tossing out unjust laws that weren't constitutional to begin with.

7/6/2010 1:37:22 PM

"upholding the Constitution" is becoming a euphemism for conservative jurisprudence

much like "law and order" used to be and possibly still is a euphemism for keeping the brown man down

and "freedom" is a euphemism for imperialistic theocracy

"ignorance is strength" indeed

7/6/2010 4:11:06 PM

Quality analysis. Thanks for that.

7/6/2010 4:18:20 PM

They're just little kings decreeing their whims. Law has nothing to do with it, and even if it did, laws are made by imbeciles.

Death to America.

7/6/2010 8:25:32 PM

Quote :

"Senate approves Kagan for high court Washington (CNN) -- Solicitor General Elena Kagan was easily confirmed Thursday as the next associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, completing the 50-year-old native New Yorker's climb to the peak of the American legal profession. The 63-37 vote was more than enough to blunt any possibility of a last-minute Republican delay or filibuster. Opposition during three days of Senate floor debate was relatively subdued."

Quote :

"Administration officials painted Kagan as a moderate liberal, and many legal analysts seemed to agree she was a politically safe pick for Obama. "The president probably got exactly what he wanted, and that's not someone who makes either the far right or the far left terribly happy. She seems to be a centrist, pragmatic progressive -- someone who's on the left but not the extreme left," said Thomas Goldstein, a top Washington lawyer and founder of the Web site scotusblog.com. "She's a nominee without much of a track record, and therefore not much to attack. And the air really went entirely out of the balloon when trying to draw attention to her, maybe paint her as a liberal, or create her as an issue for the upcoming elections in November.""

Quote :

"She is, therefore, not expected to to tilt the current ideological balance on the high court."

All that just makes seem this seem silly:

Quote :

"They said that she will become a judicial "activist" intent on twisting the law to fit her personal political agenda. ... "The American people will not easily forgive this Senate if we confirm Ms. Kagan to the Supreme Court ... One last-minute "no" vote came from Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, the chamber's newest Republican."

8/5/2010 4:35:41 PM

At the level of the supreme court, all judges are "activists". The entire justice system is based on the premise of "pass the buck" referrals to earlier judgements until you get to that point, then you can just make shit up as you go along.



Supreme court justices are our version of the monarchy, little judges on their thrones. Not a bad thing...oligarchies and dictators are often best at making the tough decisions.

8/5/2010 4:39:05 PM

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/08/06/remarks-president-and-elena-kagan-reception-honoring-her-confirmation
August 06, 2010

President Obama:

Quote :

"Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the White House. I am pleased that all of you could be here today as we celebrate the next member of our nation’s highest court. And while she may be feeling a twinge of sadness about giving up the title of “General” -- (laughter) -- a cool title -- I think we can all agree that “Justice Elena Kagan” has a pretty nice ring to it. (Applause.) We are very honored to be joined today by two of Elena’s new colleagues -- Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Anthony Kennedy -- and we’re thankful for their presence. (Applause.) Justice Kennedy assured me that he would keep Justice Kagan out of trouble, and Justice Ginsburg assured me that she would get Justice Kagan into trouble. (Laughter.) So we’ll see how that works out. (Laughter.) We’re also pleased to have several members of Congress, as well as our Cabinet here today; and of course members of Elena’s family. And thanks to all of you for your service and for taking time to be here today."

Justice Kagan:

Quote :

"And although my parents didn’t live to see this day, what I can almost hear them saying -- and I think I can hear Justice Marshall saying this to me right now as well -- is that this appointment is not just an honor. Much more importantly, it is an obligation -- an obligation to protect and preserve the rule of law in this country; an obligation to uphold the rights and liberties afforded by our remarkable Constitution; and an obligation to provide what the inscription on the Supreme Court building promises: equal justice under law. Tomorrow, I will take two oaths to uphold this solemn obligation: one, to support and defend the Constitution; and the other, to administer justice without respect to persons, to the rich and poor alike. Today, Mr. President, I will simply say to you and to everyone here and across the nation that I will work my hardest and try my best to fulfill these commitments and to serve this country I love as well as I am able."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/07/kagan-sworn-in-as-supreme-court-justice/
August 7, 2010

Quote :

"Kagan takes oath, prepares for several high-profile cases Washington (CNN) - Elena Kagan, building on a long, diverse legal career in government and academia, was officially sworn in as the 112th justice at the Supreme Court on Saturday, promising to "faithfully and impartially" discharge her new judicial duties. With friends, family and four of her new colleagues looking on, the 50-year-old Kagan took the judicial oath in the court's wood-paneled West Conference Room. It was only the second time such a ceremony was televised at the court. Chief Justice John Roberts administered the 62-word oath, required of all federal judges. In a private ceremony just moments before, Kagan took a separate constitutional oath across the hall. Both are necessary for her lifetime job to become official. Kagan beamed as she waved to relatives and guests when walking in for the public ceremony. Among those in the ornate room were her two brothers, as well as former colleagues from the Justice Department, where she served as solicitor general before being tapped by President Obama for the high court on May 10. The Bible used in the two-minute ceremony is owned by Justice Stephen Breyer, who was not in attendance. Roberts told the audience of about 70 that Kagan can "assume her duties as an associate justice and begin work right away." "Congratulations," he said afterward to rousing cheers. "On behalf of my colleagues, welcome to the court. We look forward to serving with you in our common calling.""

[Edited on August 7, 2010 at 8:15 PM. Reason : .]

8/7/2010 8:03:09 PM

I guess she should go ahead and recuse herself now in anticipation of the marriage equality case that is likely to hit the Supreme Court since there is hints and rumblings that she might be a gay herself, right burro?

8/7/2010 8:35:27 PM

8/8/2010 9:44:38 PM

^^She did recuse herself from a DADT related decision (although that was b/c she had actually engaged in that debate in a substantive way, unlike with marriage equality as far as I know).

Just saw this, kind of nice to see that even the top court officials are still subject to jury duty calls:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/21/political.circus/index.html

Quote :

"Political Circus: Justice Kagan called for jury duty The most informed juror New Supreme Court justice Elena Kagan found herself among fellow Washington residents on Thursday -- waiting at D.C. Superior Court after receiving a jury summons. "Sporting dark trousers and a checkered patterned sweater jacket, she sat quietly, reading through what appeared to be a legal brief and making handwritten notes in the margin," ABC News' Devin Dwyer reports. In the end, Kagan wasn't selected, and later "dropped her plastic badge in the trash can and left the courthouse without stopping to collect her $4 transportation stipend.""

1/21/2011 2:12:00 PM

WHAT? SHE DIDN'T RECYCLE?

1/21/2011 2:14:09 PM

they can apply the $4 to her carbon offset balance.

1/21/2011 2:27:56 PM

Quote :

"probably sounds evil but i wish this could happen to one of the conservative judges."

you do realize at some level that a overly partizan SC is a very very very bad thing right? i like one that is balanced 3-3 on the ends and 1-1 moderate and 1 neutral. that's idealized though... they should all be moderates....

1/21/2011 5:58:21 PM

I think its a richer debate to have both the right and left positions staked out by well qualified and thoughtful individuals, but I agree that the moderate position should be well presented, and a shift towards the middle would be a good thing from the current right leaning court.

1/21/2011 8:08:35 PM