• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal Judge: Constitution has no value

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It | Mediaite

Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered.

You know? I have read a good number of constitutions and looked at lots of secondary law. 'Studied the economics of property rights and constitutions for a while. There are some really good constitutions tried and tested, in theory and in practice.

And you know what? The best one I have read is that 17th century document. Odd, really.
 
Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It | Mediaite

Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered.

Yes, judges should stop studying and abiding by the founding document of the nation, the document which is the cornerstone of our entire government and all of our laws (or, at least, is meant to be). Indeed, the document that legally guarantees your right to say what you like, even if it is woefully ignorant, should just be discarded because the Left has decreed that it is no longer useful, that it is no longer important, that its authors knew no wisdom, and that laws and principals are no good if they do not conform to the liturgy and dogma of the Left. I'm not usually one for emojis, but this deserves it. :doh

Can you hear that? It's the sound of me repeatedly slamming my head into my desk. The Constitution of the United States is the cornerstone and founding document of our nation. To discard it is to discard the nation and all of the principals it stands for. I cannot begin to comprehend the level of ignorance and outright stupidity required to make such a claim. That federal judge should be removed. By making such a claim, he has demonstrated he does not possess the faculties necessary to operate as a federal judge in the United States.
 
Last edited:
“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” he continued. “Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”

**** that argument with a broom stick.
 
Liberals are an enigma, they want equality for all by the fascist force of an all powerful Nanny State. Freedoms and rights mean nothing to them. What is the allure?
 
Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It | Mediaite

Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered.

I'm curious - since this Justice presumably swore an oath to uphold this very same constitution when he took office, don't you believe the honorable thing to do would be to resign his position on the bench and seek political office and the ability to amend the constitution legally?
 
The Oath of Office for Federal Judges


The Judiciary Act of 1789, established an extra oath taken by federal judges:


“I do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the Constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

The Oaths of Office | Two Thirds of Us

Was this asshole asleep when he took his oath?
 
Yes, judges should stop studying and abiding by the founding document of the nation, the document which is the cornerstone of our entire government and all of our laws (or, at least, is meant to be). Indeed, the document that legally guarantees your right to say what you like, even if it is woefully ignorant, should just be discarded because the Left has decreed that it is no longer useful, that it is no longer important, that its authors knew no wisdom, and that laws and principals are no good if they do not conform to the liturgy and dogma of the Left. I'm not usually one for emojis, but this deserves it. :doh

Can you hear that? It's the sound of me repeatedly slamming my head into my desk. The Constitution of the United States is the cornerstone and founding document of our nation. To discard it is to discard the nation and all of the principals it stands for. I cannot begin to comprehend the level of ignorance and outright stupidity required to make such a claim. That federal judge should be removed. By making such a claim, he has demonstrated he does not possess the faculties necessary to operate as a federal judge in the United States.

What do you think this poster would do if he was jailed for posting this

"Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered."

Do you think he would call the ACLU and have them file a case on his behalf based on the 1st amendment?
 
Unfortunately legislating from the bench is becoming all too common.

Judges job is to help decide if a law has been broken. Nothing more. Those who openly state they will not honor their sworn oath should be promptly relegated to the trash heap of losers.
 
Further, this statement proves quite clearly this judge does not understand the Constitution his very position depends upon. He shouldn't be hearing cases.
 
What he really is saying is that he is so brilliant he can divine the right answers in each case on his own, without having to refer to what he considers an outdated, irrelevant set of laws. I had thought much better of Judge Posner than this. I don't know how someone can hold those views and yet uphold his oath to support the Constitution.
 
Thank you Richard Posner for proving liberals hate the Constitution and America.
How did he do that? Did you actually read what he wrote and in the context in which he wrote it?
Yes, judges should stop studying and abiding by the founding document of the nation, the document which is the cornerstone of our entire government and all of our laws (or, at least, is meant to be).
You obviously didn't the original source.
**** that argument with a broom stick.
Why?
I'm curious - since this Justice presumably swore an oath to uphold this very same constitution when he took office, don't you believe the honorable thing to do would be to resign his position on the bench and seek political office and the ability to amend the constitution legally?
I don't believe you the original source either.
The Oaths of Office | Two Thirds of Us

Was this asshole asleep when he took his oath?
What he said didn't violate this oath. You should read the original statement, so you have the context.
What do you think this poster would do if he was jailed for posting this

"Finally someone recognizing that than 17th century document made by a bunch of slave-owning creationists shouldn't be held up as sacred. Too bad he will now be tarred and feathered."

Do you think he would call the ACLU and have them file a case on his behalf based on the 1st amendment?
He would and Richard Posner would support him. I don't think he said what you think he said.
What he really is saying is that he is so brilliant he can divine the right answers in each case on his own, without having to refer to what he considers an outdated, irrelevant set of laws.
No he isn't. He very clearly said what he thought.


For everyone to whom I wrote should read the original source, I'll just make it easy for you. Richard Posner did not say anything about getting rid of the Constitution. He was making a "living Constitution" argument. Not suprisingly, the article linked in the OP "conveniently" cuts Posner's quote right before he said this, "Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14[SUP]th[/SUP]), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18[SUP]th[/SUP]-century guys were worrying about."

And, for his part, David Strauss said,
A common law approach is superior to originalism in at least four ways:

...Originalists, by contrast, do not have an answer to Thomas Jefferson's famous question: why should we allow people who lived long ago, in a different world, to decide fundamental questions about our government and society today? Originalists do not draw on the accumulated wisdom of previous generations in the way that the common law does. For an originalist, the command was issued when a provision became part of the Constitution, and our unequivocal obligation is to follow that command. But why? It is one thing to be commanded by a legislature we elected last year. It is quite another to be commanded by people who assembled in the late eighteenth century.


In other words, those of you calling him an idiot for thinking he said the Constitution has no value or that he is violating his oath or whatever probably need to do more research next time. What he seems to be saying (in my opinion) is more in support of living Constitution.
 

If you can't figure that one out on your own, nothing I could say would help you.

And you just have to love those who believe in "a living constitution" - liberal code for "we can interpret the law however we damn please".
 
If you can't figure that one out on your own, nothing I could say would help you.

And you just have to love those who believe in "a living constitution" - liberal code for "we can interpret the law however we damn please".

You have to love how there are people who think 200-year-dead slave owners should have their opinion treated as sacred.
 
Thank you Richard Posner for proving liberals hate the Constitution and America.

you know what's funny though, is Judge Posner is actually one of the more originalist judges on the bench. he doesn't like the constitution as he sees it outdated, but he knows his job as it relates to it.

he was the judge who struck down Illinois's ban on average citizens carrying firearms.
 
You have to love how there are people who think 200-year-dead slave owners should have their opinion treated as sacred.

Well when it's the founding document of the country and the source from which all law is supposed to flow it shouldn't be nothing either.

btw stop with the emotional exaggeration, not all of the founders were slave owners, and they included a process to amend the constitution, which has been used to, among other things, end slavery. which is a point, if the constitution is flawed it can be changed, and I wish the congress would go through that process instead of invent bogus legal theories to push the limits.
 
If you can't figure that one out on your own, nothing I could say would help you.

And you just have to love those who believe in "a living constitution" - liberal code for "we can interpret the law however we damn please".

Yes, there are principals expressed in the Constitution. Why the surprise that the unprincipled, 'the ends justify the means' people chaff against it?

Where as I do believe that the textualist have a much more solid argument.
 
In other words, those of you calling him an idiot for thinking he said the Constitution has no value or that he is violating his oath or whatever probably need to do more research next time. What he seems to be saying (in my opinion) is more in support of living Constitution.

Except what you quoted illustrates his view is precisely as the OP characterized. He doesn't believe the constitution is germane to today's law. Thus he should not be on the bench.

Here's where he goes horribly wrong. The constitution is maintained by the people - NOT the court. If they chose not to amend it, it stands as is. The courts are bound to the constitution as the people have let it stand. Posner can petition the Congress just like every other citizen if he believes new law is in order. He is likewise free to lobby to begin the amendment process.
 
If you can't figure that one out on your own, nothing I could say would help you.
So you answer a question which was not directed to you and still can't even be bothered to explain an answer which was never asked of you?

Why the hell did you even bother replying then? Were you embarrassed by me pointing out the fact you didn't sound like you knew what Posner actually said? Because I cannot think of any other reason why you would answer a question not asked of you by saying you can't be bothered to answer it (which, by the way, is really kind of dumb).
Except what you quoted illustrates his view is precisely as the OP characterized. He doesn't believe the constitution is germane to today's law. Thus he should not be on the bench.
He didn't say that at all. Please read what he actually said, in context. Thanks.
 
you know what's funny though, is Judge Posner is actually one of the more originalist judges on the bench. he doesn't like the constitution as he sees it outdated, but he knows his job as it relates to it.

he was the judge who struck down Illinois's ban on average citizens carrying firearms.

I wonder why Liberals / Progressives are so intent on relieving people's rights and freedoms. What do you think you (They) possibly have to gain by giving up our rights and turning them into privileges dictated by the state?
 
Well when it's the founding document of the country and the source from which all law is supposed to flow it shouldn't be nothing either.

btw stop with the emotional exaggeration, not all of the founders were slave owners, and they included a process to amend the constitution, which has been used to, among other things, end slavery. which is a point, if the constitution is flawed it can be changed, and I wish the congress would go through that process instead of invent bogus legal theories to push the limits.

Buddy that was the point of my statement. Read the post I was responding to.
 
So you answer a question which was not directed to you and still can't even be bothered to explain an answer which was never asked of you?

Why the hell did you even bother replying then? Were you embarrassed by me pointing out the fact you didn't sound like you knew what Posner actually said? Because I cannot think of any other reason why you would answer a question not asked of you by saying you can't be bothered to answer it (which, by the way, is really kind of dumb).
He didn't say that at all. Please read what he actually said, in context. Thanks.

I did and that's exactly his position, and he's wrong. His position is in direct opposition to his oath of office and his duties as a federal judge..
 
I wonder why Liberals / Progressives are so intent on relieving people's rights and freedoms. What do you think you (They) possibly have to gain by giving up our rights and turning them into privileges dictated by the state?

Which ones? The right to marry the person we love? The right to control our own bodies?
 
How did he do that? Did you actually read what he wrote and in the context in which he wrote it?
You obviously didn't the original source.
Why?
I don't believe you the original source either.
What he said didn't violate this oath. You should read the original statement, so you have the context.

He would and Richard Posner would support him. I don't think he said what you think he said.
No he isn't. He very clearly said what he thought.


For everyone to whom I wrote should read the original source, I'll just make it easy for you. Richard Posner did not say anything about getting rid of the Constitution. He was making a "living Constitution" argument. Not suprisingly, the article linked in the OP "conveniently" cuts Posner's quote right before he said this, "Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14[SUP]th[/SUP]), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18[SUP]th[/SUP]-century guys were worrying about."

And, for his part, David Strauss said,



In other words, those of you calling him an idiot for thinking he said the Constitution has no value or that he is violating his oath or whatever probably need to do more research next time. What he seems to be saying (in my opinion) is more in support of living Constitution.

The concept of a "Living Constitution" is an attempt to convince people that they need not amend the Constitution, that's hard. Far easier to bull**** about a "living" constitution and do what you want. It's a morally and intellectually dishonest POV.
 
Back
Top Bottom