- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
There is no such thing as "bias free."
The Constitution was written with bias, towards a freedom based society.
So in that regard, I am absolutely biased.
I willing to wager that 99.999% of all judges understand exactly what it means but many of them would rather impart their personal beliefs over written law because there are no consequences when they do so.
But if I'm understanding you correctly, the reason that such an easily-understandable document is misunderstood by so many intelligent people is because they let their personal morality and personal politics cloud their judgment. But you (and anyone who agrees with you) can see past your personal views and interpret it correctly? I suppose it's just a coincidence that the correct interpretation of the Constitution so closely mirrors your own political views.
Yeah, all the judges who disagree with you are just dishonest...suuurrrrreeeeee...
I didn't say that.
Don't put words into my mouth.
Even with the recent supreme court ruling on the 2nd amendment, they added their own qualifications, not supported by the original intent which is clearly in the wording of the document.
It's not dishonest per se, it's adding their own personal morality, stereotypes, political beliefs, etc.
But you said that 99.9 % understood things as you think them, but a large number act otherwise. It's easier to believe that maybe your understanding is flawed, and not that it is every one else.
If I derive my political views from the people who wrote The Constitution, how could it be anything but that?
You act like it's a surprise that someone who studies the writers of the document, would interpret the document as the writers intended.
Well no ****.:doh
Yes, they should confirm her. She is qualified for the position and that's the only thing they should be making their judgment upon.
What do you think should be the basis of decisions on things that there might have not been any historical analogue to, such as electronic privacy rights?
Privacy is privacy, electronic or otherwise.
It is derived from the 4th amendment.
Yes she should. She is qualified, intelligent, and has no disqualifying characteristics which I am aware of. Generally I think the Senate should let the president appoint whoever he wants, as long as they meet those criteria and aren't too far outside the judicial mainstream. (Cue comparisons of Kagan to Chairman Mao...now. :mrgreen
How the **** is she qualified? She has absolutely no judicial experience.
I think someone with a background other than a judge would be refreshing. Justices from all sorts of backgrounds have gone on to be effective at their job.
If I derive my political views from the people who wrote The Constitution, how could it be anything but that?
Harry Guerrilla said:You act like it's a surprise that someone who studies the writers of the document, would interpret the document as the writers intended.
lol, ya appoint a non-judge to the highest court in the country for life, it's not like the people deserve to know who the nominee is, wouldn't want someone with a judicial record to review.
Except the fourth discusses "unreasonable searches and seizure", so one could argue that a transcript of my browsing history doesn't count. Or that browsing history doesn't count as "persons houses papers and effects". It's not always up or down.
Not all justices have had judicial experience and gone on to be effective justices
How the **** is she qualified? She has absolutely no judicial experience.
But it isn't in paper. You're just interpreting the document to say things that clearly aren't on the paper of the constitution.Your browsing history is a digital log, if it weren't digital it would be in paper form.
Technological development makes no difference.
The government was clearly limited to what it could do.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Look at the wording, it was specifically not specific as to what could or could not be searched.
"Effects" or "Papers" definitely count as part of your protection.
But all of them to my knowledge had some sort of record to review. She's a blank slate, and the slight record she does have does not look good but she explains it away as having only been serving other peoples policies. And of course she thinks the state has the right to ban books.
Well hopefully you DON'T derive your political views from them, as most of them believed in some pretty detestable and/or ridiculous things (by today's standards).
1. You are assuming that studying the writers means that one would share their views. I'm pretty sure that every single person on the Supreme Court has studied the Founding Fathers...probably more in depth than you have.
2. You are assuming that YOU share their views. As I said above, I certainly hope not, as many of them believed in things like slavery, gender discrimination, genocide, oligarchy, autarky, wars of conquest, and mercantilism.
3. You are assuming that it is POSSIBLE to share their views. They were not a monolithic entity who all thought alike on every issue. Furthermore, 221 years have elapsed since the Constitution was written. If they were still alive today, what makes you think that THEIR views wouldn't have evolved since then, just because YOURS haven't?
4. You are assuming that interpreting the document as the writers intended, even if it were possible, is the only "proper" way to interpret the Constitution.
Yeah, but Bush still put 2 of them on the Supreme Court...
Funny thing about that, Bush not longer is in office. Oh, that's right, business as usual, got it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?