Justice Scalia Reportedly Passes Away

[StLucieBengal]

(02-14-2016, 03:07 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm not sure if living in the past in regards to social issues is really all that laudable, but I'm one of those fools who thinks liberty is good or something.  

As long as he follows the constitution to the letter then the rest of what happens is what it is .....

[*Nately120*]

(02-14-2016, 12:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: As long as he follows the constitution to the letter then the rest of what happens is what it is .....

I guess I just read more liberty and equality into the Constitution than a lot of its most ardent supporters do. If Scalia's dogma is exactly to the letter of the Constitution I may be an anarchist or something after all.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-14-2016, 12:25 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I guess I just read more liberty and equality into the Constitution than a lot of its most ardent supporters do.  If Scalia's dogma is exactly to the letter of the Constitution I may be an anarchist or something after all.

If we just stuck to the constitution then we would have maximum freedom.

[*Nately120*]

(02-14-2016, 12:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If we just stuck to the constitution then we would have maximum freedom.

So did Scalia stick to it or not?  Because it seems to me like he was a pretty big proponent of denying people implied rights based upon things gathered from sources other than the Constitution. Scalia just didn't seem like a "maximum freedom" kinda guy to me, is all.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-14-2016, 12:31 PM)Nately120 Wrote: So did Scalia stick to it or not?  Because it seems to me like he was a pretty big proponent of denying people implied rights based upon things gathered from sources other than the Constitution.  Scalia just didn't seem like a "maximum freedom" kinda guy to me, is all.

Depends on how you view the constitution. If you think it's living and breathing then no you wouldn't like him. But if you believed in strict adherence then he was your kinda guy.

[fredtoast]

If we stuck strictly to the Constitution then we would have no Air Force.

It is impossible to write a constitution that addresses every single issue. There has to be interpretation.

[GMDino]

(02-13-2016, 07:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I hope they drag it out.  We don't need a moderate we need someone who will stand for the constitution.

(02-14-2016, 12:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: As long as he follows the constitution to the letter then the rest of what happens is what it is .....

(02-14-2016, 12:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If we just stuck to the constitution then we would have maximum freedom.

(02-14-2016, 12:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Depends on how you view the constitution.   

[StLucieBengal]

(02-14-2016, 02:00 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Too many people actually think it's a living and breathing document. Which it isn't

[Belsnickel]

(02-14-2016, 02:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Too many people actually think it's a living and breathing document. Which it isn't

I have to disagree. The amendment process alone is an example of its intention as a living document. But little things, like the existence of a standing army and the constitutionality of it also point to it. A strict adherence to the Constitution would mean only reserves for our army.

[*bfine32*]

(02-14-2016, 02:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Too many people actually think it's a living and breathing document.  Which it isn't

I think like many things, folks change their interpretation based on their desired outcome.

For instance there was a stir about Cruz's citizenship a while back. Conservatives were saying you have to take a more liberal interpretation of the Constitution, Liberals were saying you need to take the conservative view of the document. 

[*Nately120*]

(02-14-2016, 02:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Too many people actually think it's a living and breathing document.  Which it isn't

But...but...second amendment....but...wha?  Or was it a living and breathing document that simply no longer needed to live and/or breathe once YOU got what YOU wanted?

[Belsnickel]

(02-14-2016, 02:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think like many things, folks change their interpretation based on their desired outcome.

For instance there was a stir about Cruz's citizenship a while back. Conservatives were saying you have to take a more liberal interpretation of the Constitution, Liberals were saying you need to take the conservative view of the document. 

Indeed, which was ridiculous given the 'birther' controversy over Obama.

The biggest key is interpreting the document in a manner that is to the benefit of the people. The problem is that this is always subjective. The more we come to realize this, the more we can move forward in this country with recognizing our differences and seeking common ground.

[BmorePat87]

(02-14-2016, 02:19 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Too many people actually think it's a living and breathing document.  Which it isn't

It was literally designed in a way in which you can change it.

[fredtoast]

Strict interpretation would mean that you only have the right to own a gun if you agree to be a member of a State militia.

Who is in favor of that.

[Rotobeast]

Not sure if relevant, but...

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

[GMDino]

(02-15-2016, 01:15 AM)Rotobeast Wrote: Not sure if relevant,  but...

http://m.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Texas-ranch-owner-recalls-Scalia-s-last-hours-6830372.php

Interesting.

I didn't think about someone needing to secure the area to make sure there was no foul play.

[SunsetBengal]

(02-13-2016, 07:13 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ugh.  Great now Obama gets to force yet another terrible judge on us .  

Great Obamacare dissent by Scalia.   RIP.

Are you sure about that?

http://https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

[GMDino]

(02-15-2016, 11:24 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Are you sure about that?

http://https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

Your link didn't work for some reason, but I found the article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/13/flashback-senate-democrats-in-1960-pass-resolution-against-election-year-supreme-court-recess-appointments/

Quote:Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.”  Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment. Not surprisingly, the Republicans objected, insisting that the Court should have a full complement of Justices at all times. Of course, the partisan arguments will be exactly the opposite this time.

They won't be in recess for the rest of the year will they?

[fredtoast]

(02-13-2016, 08:02 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  I'd be fine with Constitutional Justices, but a liberal court re-writing the Constitution?  Hell no.

Liberals were not the ones who claimed the Constitutions says things like "Corporations are people" and "Money is speech".

BOTH SIDES interpret the constitution to fit their political beliefs.

[RoyleRedlegs]

https://medium.com/@johndevore/compassion-is-love-without-any-small-print-417d0a7857ec#.5kcnewmfz

Comedian, John Devore writes about Scalia and dancing on graves...good read