|
But that is 34??  Or maybe.... Trap sprung....
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
Iron Prince posted:But that is 34?? oops typo. now we need a constitutional convention supermajority to fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Does it bother you that there is an honest and self-aware judge in a high post in the United States judiciary op?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
TEAH SYAG posted:Well, the liberal piece of poo poo swore an oath to uphold it, and since he's made it public that he fundamentally doesn't believe in it, he can go clear his desk and gently caress off. Impeach this cocksucker. He's a republican.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
(((richard posner))) - "oy vey this constitution is terrible. and such small portions!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
Hey, I have a good idea. Let's forget the old Constitution and Bill of Rights and just have our politicians create a brand new one!
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Pawn 17 posted:Hey, I have a good idea. Let's forget the old Constitution and Bill of Rights and just have our politicians create a brand new one! no we need to eat them whoever eats one gets their job
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
The bible was put together from a bunch of random stories, written by people who never actually lived during the time when Jesus may have lived, which were then edited for and spliced together by wealthy politicians hoping to further their power by spreading a unified holy text for the many different early-Christian denominations. Yet people read it today and think it has value other than as a book of tall tales and hymns. I'm sure if our judge were told that, by his own logic, the bible is not a valid text in the modern day... he might babble about something and dodge your question, leaving you empty and losing faith in mankind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
gingrich posted:(((richard posner))) - "oy vey this constitution is terrible. and such small portions!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Android Bicyclist posted:Our Founding Fathers had lovely crystal balls. How come Nostradamus could predict a ton of poo poo but Ben Franklin couldn't figure out Snapchat? I guarantee you if you handed Franklin a smartphone he'd be sending all the French ladies dick pics within the hour.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Well, that's the opposite view Scalia had so it must be correct
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:19
|
|
|
See the Constitution though was written with a process for amendments and alterations that would allow new generations with new problems to establish new civil rights for their ages. The issue with the Bill of Rights could certainly be said that it comes from an aged era, but the thing is, this literally is only something you apply to the second amendment. Nobody ever says the first amendment or fourth are somehow quaint and outdated, for one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
Idiots don't like the first amendment either cause their feelings get hurt and that shouldn't be allowed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Powercrazy posted:Idiots don't like the first amendment either cause their feelings get hurt and that shouldn't be allowed. Those people are retarded though, so gently caress 'em in their cunts.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Hector Beerlioz posted:Well, that's the opposite view Scalia had so it must be correct Lol Scalia picked and chose policies with no regard to actual constitutional legislature, but this guy does deserve some credit for just tossing the whole thing out and being done with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:The issue with the Bill of Rights could certainly be said that it comes from an aged era, but the thing is, this literally is only something you apply to the second amendment. Nobody ever says the first amendment or fourth are somehow quaint and outdated, for one. I mean, the nature of national defense and firearms is unrecognizable from what it was in the eighteenth century, but free discourse and ensuring that citizens are protected from abuse by law enforcement remain extremely important to a functioning democracy even if the ways we conduct those things have changed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
KomodoWagon posted:Lol Scalia picked and chose policies with no regard to actual constitutional legislature, but this guy does deserve some credit for just tossing the whole thing out and being done with it. I thought he was a big on strictly adhering to the Constitution, but I will admit all my info on him comes from the obituaries
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
I've read the constitution ten-thousand times so you know I'm smart
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Hector Beerlioz posted:I thought he was a big on strictly adhering to the Constitution, but I will admit all my info on him comes from the obituaries He totally said those things, and created an air of believing those things, but like all Republicans once the door closes it's all cocaine and penises
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
How do i get invited to the cocain and penis parties
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:See the Constitution though was written with a process for amendments and alterations that would allow new generations with new problems to establish new civil rights for their ages. Actually I'm pretty sure that the last sixteen years have established the precedent that the fourth amendment is a bunch of bullshit that law enforcement and intelligence agencies need not even pay the slightest attention to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:40
|
|
|
Hector Beerlioz posted:How do i get invited to the cocain and penis parties job in banking
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
Op, I didn't know; was short for ,
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
Android Bicyclist posted:Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner thinks the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and post-Civil War amendments aren't really worth studying. Me smarter than old dead guy. Me say you no have rights. gently caress this dead gay country
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:00
|
|
|
Sounds like this posner guy is just mad he can't write you a constitutional amendment to make you fall in love
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Hector Beerlioz posted:I thought he was a big on strictly adhering to the Constitution, but I will admit all my info on him comes from the obituaries Basically all of Scalia's "strict interpretation" shtick came down to believing he had a direct pipeline to the ghosts of the founding fathers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
gingrich posted:(((richard posner))) - "oy vey this constitution is terrible. and such small portions!" This nigga knows what's up
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
Posner's just mad that Scalia (PBUH) died having peaked way loving higher than he could ever hope to, in every way possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
tldr
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
I'm sure this is just a coincidence considering that in the last week SCOTUS told three states to knock off their anti-abortion crap.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Vince MechMahon posted:He's a republican. Anyone who disagrees with me is a liberal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
redm posted:Look guys, I know my job is to read law but gently caress you allright, the constitution? Really? Like what even is it? peep my twitter and facebook to watch me get more and more gradually bored with reading #judgelifeintheinternetpornfactory Posner's not saying we don't pay attention to the constitution. He's criticising excessively academic approaches to decision making, and in particular the "original intent" approach to constitutional questions, which says we need to look back to the 18th century dudes and how the constitution was applied back then to know what is constitutionally permissible. As an example of what he's talking about, in Bowels v. Harddick, in 1986 the court decided the state of Georgia could arrest your for butt loving your BF in the privacy of your own home because there was no historical, constitutionally protected right to homosexual sodomy [sic]. But since by 2003 it was more or less OK to be gay, at least on TV, the court explicitly reversed that view in Lawrence v. Texas. In retrospect, the issue in Bowels was that the judges thought gay sex was gross and in Lawrence that they thought it was mostly OK. The 18th century version of the bill of rights had not changed in the mean time. Posner is just saying that the majority of supreme court justices in Bowels were wasting their time and ours by pretending otherwise. Just like all those law professors who have never actually practised law waste their time and their students' time with awful loving law review articles that no-one who is not a miserable autist actually reads.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
If the laws are outdated maybe the laws should be changed democratically rather than leaving it up to judges to just pull readings out of their rear end that are directly contrary to the law of the land.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 21:57
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:I mean, the nature of national defense and firearms is unrecognizable from what it was in the eighteenth century, but free discourse and ensuring that citizens are protected from abuse by law enforcement remain extremely important to a functioning democracy even if the ways we conduct those things have changed. If only the constitution included some way to add to or modify existing amendments...
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
There will be a breaking of the ancient Western code.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2016 03:05
|
|