Is the swingman retiring?

[*bfine32*]

Reports are Justice Kennedy is stepping down in early summer:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senator-justice-kennedy-is-going-to-retire-this-summer/ar-BBK2XiE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

He should take the notorious RBG with him and POTUS should give each party a nominee.

[GMDino]

(03-09-2018, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Reports are Justice Kennedy is stepping down in early summer:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senator-justice-kennedy-is-going-to-retire-this-summer/ar-BBK2XiE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

He should take the notorious RBG with him and POTUS should give each party a nominee.

Oh, I needed that laugh.

Thanks.

No way the GOP would give the democratic nominee a hearing.  Hell they didn't give them a hearing on one when there was a Democrat that nominated him.

[StLucieBengal]

Great another originalist otw.

Ginsberg will be gone after 2020, at that point trump can put another orginalist on there. Then maybe we start getting actual rulings based off the constitution as intended.

[Benton]

(03-09-2018, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Reports are Justice Kennedy is stepping down in early summer:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senator-justice-kennedy-is-going-to-retire-this-summer/ar-BBK2XiE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

He should take the notorious RBG with him and POTUS should give each party a nominee.

Giving each side a nominee is a waste of time and money. The other side won’t consider it. In the case of the gop, they openly advocate for it.

[Dill]

(03-09-2018, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Reports are Justice Kennedy is stepping down in early summer:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senator-justice-kennedy-is-going-to-retire-this-summer/ar-BBK2XiE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

He should take the notorious RBG with him and POTUS should give each party a nominee.

Another harsh lesson-in-the-making for American voters.  It makes a difference who is president.

[fredtoast]

(03-09-2018, 04:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Great another originalist otw.  

Ginsberg will be gone after 2020, at that point trump can put another orginalist on there.     Then maybe we start getting actual rulings based off the constitution as intended.

You mean go back to counting black people as three fifths of a human?

The intent of the framers is not very important anymore because the world has changed so much.  In 1787 "smaller government" meant more freedom for citizens.  But after the industrial revolution and the rise in power of corporations (two things the framers never imagined) "smaller government" means more citizens being oppressed and exploited by powerful corporations.

[Belsnickel]

(03-09-2018, 06:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean go back to counting black people as three fifths of a human?

The intent of the framers is not very important anymore because the world has changed so much.  In 1787 "smaller government" meant more freedom for citizens.  But after the industrial revolution and the rise in power of corporations (two things the framers never imagined) "smaller government" means more citizens being oppressed and exploited by powerful corporations.

Just remember, it's on;y judicial activism if you disagree with it.

[BmorePat87]

(03-09-2018, 03:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Reports are Justice Kennedy is stepping down in early summer:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/gop-senator-justice-kennedy-is-going-to-retire-this-summer/ar-BBK2XiE?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=ientp

He should take the notorious RBG with him and POTUS should give each party a nominee.

I think 4-4-1 makes for a good court, but I don't see anyone agreeing to that. 

[BmorePat87]

Sounds like a desperate politician is worried about his reelection bid wants to get his base active.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-09-2018, 06:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean go back to counting black people as three fifths of a human?

The intent of the framers is not very important anymore because the world has changed so much.  In 1787 "smaller government" meant more freedom for citizens.  But after the industrial revolution and the rise in power of corporations (two things the framers never imagined) "smaller government" means more citizens being oppressed and exploited by powerful corporations.

The judicial branch is way too strong now and until the legislature takes back their power we can not afford any of these justices who aren’t strictly adhering to the constitution.

[Dill]

(03-09-2018, 07:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The judicial branch is way too strong now and until the legislature takes back their power we can not afford any of these justices who aren’t strictly adhering to the constitution.

Were they following the "original intent" when they decided money was free speech?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-09-2018, 06:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You mean go back to counting black people as three fifths of a human?

The intent of the framers is not very important anymore because the world has changed so much.  In 1787 "smaller government" meant more freedom for citizens.  But after the industrial revolution and the rise in power of corporations (two things the framers never imagined) "smaller government" means more citizens being oppressed and exploited by powerful corporations.

No.  That's no longer a part of the constitution.  It's been amended, and since the ability to amend is in the original constitution, then an orginalist would follow the amendment.

And they weren't counted as 3/5 of a human because they thought of them that way. It was tax and representation that were at stake. Some people may not have considered slaves human at all, but that's not what this was about.And it wasn't blacks per se as a free black person would be counted as one.

[BmorePat87]

(03-12-2018, 09:02 AM)michaelsean Wrote: No.  That's no longer a part of the constitution.  It's been amended, and since the ability to amend is in the original constitution, then an orginalist would follow the amendment.

And they weren't counted as 3/5 of a human because they thought of them that way.  It was tax and representation that were at stake.  Some people may not have considered slaves human at all, but that's not what this was about.And it wasn't blacks per se as a free black person would be counted as one.

Technically the 3/5th's compromise is still a part of the Constitution, but I think we all understand Fred's point of the many injustices present in the Constitution at the time it was written. If we want to be originalist, we'd have a VERY different Presidential election process. 

[*michaelsean*]

(03-12-2018, 10:18 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Technically the 3/5th's compromise is still a part of the Constitution, but I think we all understand Fred's point of the many injustices present in the Constitution at the time it was written. If we want to be originalist, we'd have a VERY different Presidential election process. 

The wording is still in there due to the unique way the constitution is amended, but it's no longer in effect.  

I'm not sure what you mean in your second sentence. Original intent includes any amendments.

[GMDino]

(03-12-2018, 10:37 AM)michaelsean Wrote: The wording is still in there due to the unique way the constitution is amended, but it's no longer in effect.  

I'm not sure what you mean in your second sentence.  Original intent includes any amendments.

Just to play devil's advocate:  Would an originalist have rejected the legality of an amendment such as the one that changed the 3/5 wording?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-12-2018, 10:50 AM)GMDino Wrote: Just to play devil's advocate:  Would an originalist have rejected the legality of an amendment such as the one that changed the 3/5 wording?

Are you talking one that passed?  No they wouldn't reject any amendment that passed.  Amendments are original intent.  

[GMDino]

(03-12-2018, 10:59 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Are you talking one that passed?  No they wouldn't reject any amendment that passed.  Amendments are original intent.  

Amendments that change original intent are then considered original intent?

Prohibition...then revoking it for example?


Which was original intent?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-12-2018, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: Amendments that change original intent are then considered original intent?

Prohibition...then revoking it for example?


Which was original intent?

Both were. Amendments are original intent, so they can't go against original intent.  

[Au165]

(03-12-2018, 11:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Both were.  Amendments are original intent, so they can't go against original intent.  

Wait.....What? This statement contradicts itself at multiple levels.

[GMDino]

(03-12-2018, 11:13 AM)michaelsean Wrote: Both were.  Amendments are original intent, so they can't go against original intent.  

That doesn't sound logical.

Why would someone be an "originalist" and then agree with changes?  That doesn't sound like something people who claim to like the "originalists" would like.

They seem to want the Constitution applied as "originally" written...not as changes have been made.

Nor do they like new "interpretations" even though all we have is interpretations.  So if a new interpretation is that blacks/slaves no longer count as 3/5 that would not be original.  Nor would adding prohibition.  Then getting rid of prohibition.

Original is original: The way the founding fathers "meant" it to be.