Profile
Search
Register
Log in
Ron Paul: The 5 Million Dollar Man
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > Social stuff. Political stuff. KNOWMORE

Author Message
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

bigsole wrote:
not to be a dick... but it should be forbidden to use terms like "constructionism" or "structuralism" outside of a college classroom. .

Please, no more rules or laws.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
bigsole
Bought his character on ebay


Joined: 27 Aug 2002
Posts: 720
Location: the o
 Reply with quote  

you're right, rules are for activist judges. i guess im a structuralist at heart.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 5:44 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

If Supreme Court Justices were elected officials and were thus held accountable by a constituency for their decisions, I could understand the rationale in letting them be more subjective about their interpretation of the constitution.

But as it stands, they are appointed for life. For a justice to have the power to interpret law with no accountability for his/her entire life, I would much rather he just go by the written word or original intent than attempt to make law on his/her own, based on his/her own vision of morality, which I feel Roe v Wade did.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:29 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
]
But as it stands, they are appointed for life. For a justice to have the power to interpret law with no accountability for his/her entire life, I would much rather he just go by the written word or original intent than attempt to make law on his/her own, based on his/her own vision of morality, which I feel Roe v Wade did.


They have plenty of accountability. They have to avoid popular uprising, military coups, and the other two branches sacking them with an amendment.
Post Thu Oct 04, 2007 6:36 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

Dan Shay wrote:
tommi teardrop wrote:
]
But as it stands, they are appointed for life. For a justice to have the power to interpret law with no accountability for his/her entire life, I would much rather he just go by the written word or original intent than attempt to make law on his/her own, based on his/her own vision of morality, which I feel Roe v Wade did.


They have plenty of accountability. They have to avoid popular uprising, military coups, and the other two branches sacking them with an amendment.
I'm sure they lose a lot of sleep at night worrying about all of those things.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:53 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
3flip



Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 2201
Location: Minneapolis
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
PS The constitution is great but I really can't give a flying fuck what a bunch of slave-owning patriarchial sexists would have wanted. The checks and balances system is brilliant, as is many of the early rights outlined in the document, but I don't want to be tied into that witch-burning moment in time any more than I want the ten commandments to be the law of the land either.

Societies progress. Judges are generally very intelligent people who should be given leeway to view people's rights in light of evolving standards of decency and understanding.


its no fair to judge them by our current social standards. they wanted to abolish slavery but there is no way in fuck the constitution would be ratified if they put that in there. our forefathers, for the most part, cared about nothing more than setting up a government that would protect our liberty, a far cry from the ambitions of current politicians. a lot of what is wrong with this country can be traced back to violations against our constitution.

judges should not be given leeway. if laws can be interpreted anyway you fuckin want them to be than shit will hit the fan. people in power want more power, that is the nature of people and of government. interpretation of laws, for the most part, will benefit those in power and hurt the people. if shit needs to be changed it should be done legally through an amendment.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:04 am
 View user's profile Send private message
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
Dan Shay wrote:
shambhala wrote:

Societies progress. Judges are generally very intelligent people who should be given leeway to view people's rights in light of evolving standards of decency and understanding.


That or the governor's brother in law.


"generally"
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:54 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

3flip wrote:
shambhala wrote:
PS The constitution is great but I really can't give a flying fuck what a bunch of slave-owning patriarchial sexists would have wanted. The checks and balances system is brilliant, as is many of the early rights outlined in the document, but I don't want to be tied into that witch-burning moment in time any more than I want the ten commandments to be the law of the land either.

Societies progress. Judges are generally very intelligent people who should be given leeway to view people's rights in light of evolving standards of decency and understanding.


its no fair to judge them by our current social standards. they wanted to abolish slavery but there is no way in fuck the constitution would be ratified if they put that in there. our forefathers, for the most part, cared about nothing more than setting up a government that would protect our liberty, a far cry from the ambitions of current politicians. a lot of what is wrong with this country can be traced back to violations against our constitution.

judges should not be given leeway. if laws can be interpreted anyway you fuckin want them to be than shit will hit the fan. people in power want more power, that is the nature of people and of government. interpretation of laws, for the most part, will benefit those in power and hurt the people. if shit needs to be changed it should be done legally through an amendment.


By your logic Jim Crow laws would still be in effect. Period. End of discussion.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 10:57 am
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
shambhala wrote:
Dan Shay wrote:
shambhala wrote:

Societies progress. Judges are generally very intelligent people who should be given leeway to view people's rights in light of evolving standards of decency and understanding.


That or the governor's brother in law.


"generally"



Do me a favor and define 'very intelligent'.

Then define 'leeway'.

And then define 'evolving standards of decency and understanding'.

They speak legaleze in closed meetings when they're not acting reclusive in county clubs.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:32 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
tommi teardrop



Joined: 12 Apr 2007
Posts: 2216
Location: Las Vegas
 Reply with quote  

shambhala wrote:
By your logic Jim Crow laws would still be in effect. Period. End of discussion.
You argue about as well as you understand constitutional law.

Your entire opinion on this shit is about as ridiculous as this article.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-russell/why-the-strict-constru_b_4517.html

A strict constructionist would repeal Jim Crow Laws because they ignore the whole "equal protection under the law," part of the constitution.

You are lumping strict constructionism in with these bullshit judges, many of whom used judical activism to uphold racism through law. If you read the comments on the article that I posted, you will read this one, which explains why it is bullshit:

"Plessy v. Ferguson was actually an example of judicial activism and a deviation from "strict constructionism", as it actually violated, rather, ignored the constitutional statute regarding "equal protection under the law". The Brown v. Board of Education ruling was actually a correction of Plessy, and was closer to a "strict constructionist" ruling than Plessy. The long and short of it is that SCOTUS is not in the business of re-writing laws; it is in the business of interpreting the Constitution. Legislators legislate, justices rule on the constitutionality of that legislation. Why this is such a hard concept to grasp is beyond me."
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Dan Shay



Joined: 30 Aug 2003
Posts: 11245
Location: MN
 Reply with quote  

Tommi,

In those days, the supreme court who ruled on on Plessy v. Fergie we're self described 'strict constructionists'.

The author you quoted is looking backwards in time with the distorted lens of today's version of strict constructionism, which kinda highlights the subjectivity of it all.

A person can flipflop from being a strict constructionist to an activist judge depending upon what side of an issue the person using that qualifier stands.

Many words are floating qualifiers. They mean different things to different people.

To me, strict constructionism signifys a threat from legislators to the judiciary to rubber stamp something.

Limiting or restricting judicial interpretation could easily be considered attempting to hinder the ability of judges to abstract issues in order that they can theorize and rule on how certain laws contradict the bill of rights.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:04 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  


Quote:


A strict constructionist would repeal Jim Crow Laws because they ignore the whole "equal protection under the law," part of the constitution.



...which is ignorant, because in fact the constitution ignores the "equal protection under the law" part of the constitution when it comes to racism, which requires proactive protections, as do other institutionalized forms of oppression. Something that is actually part of jurisprudence, thanks to most judges not being idiot strict constructionists.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:07 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

Dan Shay wrote:
shambhala wrote:
shambhala wrote:
Dan Shay wrote:
shambhala wrote:

Societies progress. Judges are generally very intelligent people who should be given leeway to view people's rights in light of evolving standards of decency and understanding.


That or the governor's brother in law.


"generally"



Do me a favor and define 'very intelligent'.

Then define 'leeway'.

And then define 'evolving standards of decency and understanding'.

They speak legaleze in closed meetings when they're not acting reclusive in county clubs.


I agree with your last comment.

But I look at Roper v. Simmons as a good example of the basic point I'm making here. I understand it's touchy, and you don't want legislation from the bench in a democracy, and I agree that federal judges are generally pricks. I've had to sit in front of a judge before. They're assholes.

But I make no apologies about the fact that I'm socially progressive, and that I believe that a lot of the important social change in the past century has been at least partially based on court decisions. We live in a backwards ass country, and our legislature is stacked with religious fundamentalists and xenophobes. If it wasn't for what's labeled as "activist" judges, we'd still be executing juvenile offenders, women in huge swaths of the country wouldn't have control of their reproductive systems, and (with apologies to Tommi), school segregation would still be legal.

In Roper v. Simmons, international standards were specifically cited as contributing to the court's decision. I view that as a good thing. When I call judges "generally intelligent," I'm not saying they're brilliant infallible oracles who I trust implicitly, but I am saying that their educations and intellectual vocations make it possible for them to see angles on social issues that Congress does not. That's been proven through history.

No, I'm not a consitutional scholar. This is my lay person's opinion.

Dan Shay wrote:
Limiting or restricting judicial interpretation could easily be considered attempting to hinder the ability of judges to abstract issues in order that they can theorize and rule on how certain laws contradict the bill of rights.


This is basically what I'm trying to say here.


Last edited by shambhala on Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:52 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
shambhala



Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 6303
Location: the barber of hard truths
 Reply with quote  

tommi teardrop wrote:
A strict constructionist would repeal Jim Crow Laws because they ignore the whole "equal protection under the law," part of the constitution.


Ever hear of "separate but equal"? The Supreme Court had to progressively interpret the Constitution, a document that was written when slavery was legal, to come to the conclusion that the effect and not the intent of a law was what counted when it comes to racism.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:55 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Embryo



Joined: 31 Dec 2002
Posts: 6359
Location: http://www.myspace.com/pogopark
 Reply with quote  

whoo, shambala. Shay too.
Post Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:06 pm
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Oct 31, 2014 11:30 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon