- Joined
- Jan 5, 2016
- Messages
- 6,917
- Reaction score
- 2,930
- Location
- Richmond, VA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Thank you Richard Posner for proving liberals hate the Constitution and America.
You ought to learn to read.
Thank you Richard Posner for proving liberals hate the Constitution and America.
You ought to learn to read.
Thank you Richard Posner for proving liberals hate the Constitution and America.
While I do agree the Constitution is HIGHLY FLAWED...I do think it has some good points to it.
But I am sick of people looking at it as some sacred text...it ain't.
That text is the 'law' that preserves your rights. It was written to ensure that regardless of political party, lean tilt, whatever that the rights of US citizens and the roles of government be clearly defined and secured. You may not believe it should be seen as sacred but it definitely should be revered.While I do agree the Constitution is HIGHLY FLAWED...I do think it has some good points to it.
But I am sick of people looking at it as some sacred text...it ain't.
He didn't say that at all. Please read what he actually said, in context. Thanks.
But, Clownboy has focused upon an effect of Posner's belief, an implication of his view, in other terms an inference, arising from his logic. Clownboy's point, I think, was to assert Posner is ignoring the text of the Constitution and is purposefully and intentionally not adhering to the text of the Constitution. I think Clownboy is correct.
Clownboy said: "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.
Isn't Posner's apparent advocacy for a common law approach, as described by Strauss, or as what you attribute to Posner, the "living constitution" methodology, to effectively no longer rely upon the text of the Constitution? There is no point in having written law, indeed the written law becomes useless, pointless, futile, if judges and justices can change the very meaning of the words used in the written law by merely issuing an opinion to this effect. To not adhere to or to not be bound to the written law, the meaning of the words used in the written law, is to effectually not have a written law. The written law becomes obsolete.
This is an implication, an inference, an effect of Posner's perspective and his beliefs. Indeed Posner has, apparently, reportedly, stated rather unequivocally he does not care about the text of the U.S. Constitution.
"I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. Judge Posner on Judging, Birthright Citizenship, and Precedent | Josh Blackman's Blog
Justice Posner did not contest the accuracy of this remark attributed to him. "I have checked with Judge Posner and he agrees, at least for the parts of his talk used in this essay, that he was correctly quoted." The Constitution Means What the Supreme Court Says It Means - The Constitution Means What the Supreme Court Says It Means
So, it seems to me, Clownboy has indeed focused upon a legitimate and rational effect, implication, and inference arising from and a derivative of Posner's point of view. Posner's own remarks support as accurate and correct Clownboy's assertion that Posner's reasoning and belief has the effect of no longer relying upon the text of the Constitution, indeed ignoring the text of the Constitution.
A living constitution is not about changing the Constitution, but rather applying it under modern situations. There's a big difference.
He said he thought David Strauss was right, in that the Supreme Court, when deciding cases today, should use common day concerns to address cases, not what someone in the 18th century would have thought. In other words, courts should leverage modern day knowledge to decide cases and not make decisions based on the more limited knowledge of 200+ years ago.
In 1787 these words appeared in the Constitution:
All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
The italicized words had a particular meaning in 1787.
Posner is a prolific writer on a number of subjects. I've read a number of his decisions and his non-judicial writings and he's always struck me as an insightful and extremely intelligent man. Here I couldn't disagree with him more.
But, I suppose his feelings are in line with his philosophy. He's a pragmatist at heart and concerns himself greatly with the impact his rulings have in the real world.
He's not advocating change, he's discussing how the Constitution is applied. There's a difference.I disagree... it is the law of the land, and it already gives the protocol for changes, that are hard to enact for a reason.
This is false. He did not say that. He said they shouldn't spend DECADES as judges studying it. He never said they shouldn't spend time studying it. Here's the original article... please read the whole thing and in context.The man says that judges should not waste any time studying the Constitution, its amendments, or its implementation.
The example was perfect. We live in an age where leeches are not valid because of what we know today...the same goes with how we should apply the Constitution.Your example of doctors not learning about leeches is horrible. Doctors learn about methods like that so that we can say, these are not what you should do.
No, he didn't. Again, please read the original source in its entirety, it'll make more sense.He said the original Constitution, Bill of Rights, and post-Civil War amendments do not have a place in modern society.
I have no idea from where you pulled this quote, because I do not see it in Posner's article on Slate. If you could direct me to where you found this quote, I'd appreciate it.“I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. I don’t believe that any document drafted in the 18th century can guide our behavior today,”
This basically sums it up. He doesn't care at all about the Constitution.
He didn't say that though. People keeping making up things he did not say and it makes me wonder why so many people struggle with reading comprehension.No...I agree. He didnt say it should be done away with...just not studied as a standard.
All of this is irrelevant because he was not advocating this. This is a strawman.To the contrary...the STANDARD preserves all freedoms. Eliminating the standard and...well...you have no standard. Then you are left to the political whims of any given ruling party.
So you support people making false assumptions and holding them as true in an effort to criticize someone?But, Clownboy has focused upon an effect of Posner's belief, an implication of his view, in other terms an inference, arising from his logic.
But that point is wrong, by the very words Posner used. I think you and clownboy are literally making up stuff that was never said nor even implied.Clownboy's point, I think, was to assert Posner is ignoring the text of the Constitution and is purposefully and intentionally not adhering to the text of the Constitution. I think Clownboy is correct.
But the Constitution is not so much law as it is framework for law. It's not about changing the Constitution, but rather judging laws against the Constitution according to modern society.Isn't Posner's apparent advocacy for a common law approach, as described by Strauss, or as what you attribute to Posner, the "living constitution" methodology, to effectively no longer rely upon the text of the Constitution? There is no point in having written law, indeed the written law becomes useless, pointless, futile, if judges and justices can change the very meaning of the words used in the written law by merely issuing an opinion to this effect.
Again, he never once said not to have a Constitution. It really saddens me so many people are having trouble understanding what is, essentially, a very easy to understand argument.To not adhere to or to not be bound to the written law, the meaning of the words used in the written law, is to effectually not have a written law. The written law becomes obsolete.
This is an implication, an inference, an effect of Posner's perspective and his beliefs. Indeed Posner has, apparently, reportedly, stated rather unequivocally he does not care about the text of the U.S. Constitution.
"I’m not particularly interested in the 18th Century, nor am I particularly interested in the text of the Constitution. Judge Posner on Judging, Birthright Citizenship, and Precedent | Josh Blackman's Blog
Justice Posner did not contest the accuracy of this remark attributed to him. "I have checked with Judge Posner and he agrees, at least for the parts of his talk used in this essay, that he was correctly quoted." The Constitution Means What the Supreme Court Says It Means - The Constitution Means What the Supreme Court Says It Means
Judge Posner conceded that the Constitution provides general guidelines that he must respect, such as vague preferences for freedom of speech and religion and against unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments. Those vague preferences, however, while perhaps important to the public at large, do not decide litigated cases:
What would the framers of the [Fourth Amendment] have thought about [n]ational security surveillance of people’s emails[?] That is a meaningless question. It is not an interpretive question, it is a creative question. . . . The [Constitution] cannot resolve it . . . by thinking about the intentions, the notes of the constitutional convention, [or] other sources from the 18th century. This seems to be the standard problem for judges . . . . It is not interpretation, it is just trying to find . . . a solution to a question that has not been solved by the legislature.
Except it has been clearly denied by Posner, as evidenced by your own source. :shrug:So, it seems to me, Clownboy has indeed focused upon a legitimate and rational effect, implication, and inference arising from and a derivative of Posner's point of view.
Except that's not his position, nor is he arguing that. Why do you keep ignoring that?Posner's own remarks support as accurate and correct Clownboy's assertion that Posner's reasoning and belief has the effect of no longer relying upon the text of the Constitution, indeed ignoring the text of the Constitution.
False, as I've already proven.Which has the effect of not adhering to the text of the Constitution. Clownboy is focusing upon an effect of Posner's reasoning, an inference, an implication. I think he (Clownboy) has correctly identified an inference, effect, implication of POsner's view.
Part 1
He's not advocating change, he's discussing how the Constitution is applied. There's a difference.
This is false. He did not say that. He said they shouldn't spend DECADES as judges studying it. He never said they shouldn't spend time studying it. Here's the original article... please read the whole thing and in context.
The example was perfect. We live in an age where leeches are not valid because of what we know today...the same goes with how we should apply the Constitution.
No, he didn't. Again, please read the original source in its entirety, it'll make more sense.
If they have no place in modern society, than that means we should not apply them to how our nation is maintained.
I have no idea from where you pulled this quote, because I do not see it in Posner's article on Slate. If you could direct me to where you found this quote, I'd appreciate it.
He didn't say that though. People keeping making up things he did not say and it makes me wonder why so many people struggle with reading comprehension.
All of this is irrelevant because he was not advocating this. This is a strawman.
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?
This is false. He did not say that. He said they shouldn't spend DECADES as judges studying it. He never said they shouldn't spend time studying it. Here's the original article... please read the whole thing and in context.
In no reality should it ever be acceptable to twist someone's words to criticize them falsely.
So you support people making false assumptions and holding them as true in an effort to criticize someone?
fter all, I'm just focusing on an effect of your belief, and implication of your view, in other terms an inference, arising from your logic.
But that point is wrong, by the very words Posner used. I think you and clownboy are literally making up stuff that was never said nor even implied.
But the Constitution is not so much law as it is framework for law.
It's not about changing the Constitution, but rather judging laws against the Constitution according to modern society.
Except that's not his position, nor is he arguing that. Why do you keep ignoring that?
False, as I've already proven.
I think it's amazing how many people want to take an out of context quote, refuse to look at the larger picture of what's being said and then use that to criticize someone based upon their own ignorance of the nuances of a position. He never said, nor does he apparently believe, the Constitution should not be adhered to, only that it should be applied in modern terms.
Except it has been clearly denied by Posner, as evidenced by your own source.
Except that's not his position, nor is he arguing that. Why do you keep ignoring that?
I think it's amazing how many people want to take an out of context quote, refuse to look at the larger picture of what's being said and then use that to criticize someone based upon their own ignorance of the nuances of a position. He never said, nor does he apparently believe, the Constitution should not be adhered to, only that it should be applied in modern terms.