Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Justice Scalia is at it again.


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 6:49:40 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


Umm. . . he has a point.  The US Constitution did NOT recognize the rights of women. 

That is a historical fact.

The US Constitution actually took away some rights that women had.

He is not saying that women should be denied rights, he is talking about what the founders envisioned.

Remember Abigael Adams?


Which gets us back to the point that Scalia and many others believe in a strict, literal interpretation of a document that was written in a purposefully broad manner to anticipate changes in society.

But more to the point, even if he is right about "what the founders envisioned",  is it realistically applicable more than two centuries later?

And if not, then what is the point of him talking about it other than to be the pompous, attention-seeking ass that he is?

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 7:36:17 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Is this what you are proclaiming we return too?


And just where in the hell did I suggest that?



_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 7:40:03 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee


Umm. . . he has a point.  The US Constitution did NOT recognize the rights of women. 

That is a historical fact.

The US Constitution actually took away some rights that women had.

He is not saying that women should be denied rights, he is talking about what the founders envisioned.

Remember Abigael Adams?


Which gets us back to the point that Scalia and many others believe in a strict, literal interpretation of a document that was written in a purposefully broad manner to anticipate changes in society.

But more to the point, even if he is right about "what the founders envisioned",  is it realistically applicable more than two centuries later?

And if not, then what is the point of him talking about it other than to be the pompous, attention-seeking ass that he is?



Oh my.  Suggesting that laws should come from the legislature as opposed to the judicial bench is really out of line.



_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 7:42:36 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, like was around in the old days about others instead of who we should be watching:

We don't want these clowns legislating from the bench.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 7:45:11 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

We don't want these clowns legislating from the bench.


Actually, no I do not.  Such a thing corrupts the separation of powers and the ideal of checks and balances.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 8:04:22 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Oh my.  Suggesting that laws should come from the legislature as opposed to the judicial bench is really out of line.



And here I thought the Constitution designated a judicial branch to interpret the law.


FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...

(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 8:19:01 AM   
Aylee


Posts: 24103
Joined: 10/14/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Oh my.  Suggesting that laws should come from the legislature as opposed to the judicial bench is really out of line.



And here I thought the Constitution designated a judicial branch to interpret the law.


FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...



Interpret, not make.

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

I don’t always wgah’nagl fhtagn. But when I do, I ph’nglui mglw’nafh R’lyeh.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 8:31:50 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

Oh my.  Suggesting that laws should come from the legislature as opposed to the judicial bench is really out of line.



And here I thought the Constitution designated a judicial branch to interpret the law.


FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Article III


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...



Interpret, not make.


Ok, give me an example of a court making a law.



(in reply to Aylee)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 8:38:43 AM   
Sserpentia


Posts: 66
Joined: 1/26/2010
Status: offline 		The Constitution did NOT take away rights of women. The states took themselves took away those rights.

In the state of New Jersey, thousands of women voted from 1776-1807. Overwhelmingly, the women were voting for the republicans at that time. The Federalists, in a move to help themselves, banned women and african-americans.

http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/njh/womens_suffrage/intro.php

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 8:48:12 AM   
rulemylife


Posts: 14614
Joined: 8/23/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sserpentia

The Constitution did NOT take away rights of women. The states took themselves took away those rights.

In the state of New Jersey, thousands of women voted from 1776-1807. Overwhelmingly, the women were voting for the republicans at that time. The Federalists, in a move to help themselves, banned women and african-americans.

http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/njh/womens_suffrage/intro.php


When did I say it did?

(in reply to Sserpentia)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 8:52:17 AM   
Sserpentia


Posts: 66
Joined: 1/26/2010
Status: offline 		RML

Sorry...you didn't say it did. Aylee did.

(in reply to rulemylife)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 8:55:54 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sserpentia

The Constitution did NOT take away rights of women. The states took themselves took away those rights.

In the state of New Jersey, thousands of women voted from 1776-1807. Overwhelmingly, the women were voting for the republicans at that time. The Federalists, in a move to help themselves, banned women and african-americans.

http://www2.scc.rutgers.edu/njh/womens_suffrage/intro.php

If they were voting for a party that wouldn't exist for 45 more years I think they should have been disenfranchised.

(in reply to Sserpentia)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 9:00:41 AM   
Sserpentia


Posts: 66
Joined: 1/26/2010
Status: offline 		Federalists were in power from the 1790's to almost 1820.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 9:04:39 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sserpentia

Federalists were in power from the 1790's to almost 1820.

They sure were.

The Republican party OTOH wasn't formed until the 1850's.

(in reply to Sserpentia)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 9:09:41 AM   
Sserpentia


Posts: 66
Joined: 1/26/2010
Status: offline 		Ok, lets be very clear. The party which led to the republican party, started by Jefferson. Better?

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 9:12:49 AM   
Sserpentia


Posts: 66
Joined: 1/26/2010
Status: offline 		Point being, it was on party within a state which banned women from voting from the state constitution. It's not the Constitution of the United States which denies rights of women.

(in reply to Sserpentia)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 9:19:25 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sserpentia

Ok, lets be very clear. The party which led to the republican party, started by Jefferson. Better?

Jefferson would be offended and outraged by that claim.

The party Jefferson founded was called the Democratic-Republican party. It split in the 1820's into the Democratic Party and the Whig Party. The GOP formed when the Whigs fell apart in the 1850's.

(in reply to Sserpentia)
Profile   Post #: 37
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 9:39:07 AM   
Sserpentia


Posts: 66
Joined: 1/26/2010
Status: offline 		Actually, the whigs were only around for about 15 years. From the mid 30's to 50. It's still factually accurate. Jefferson started the party (call it the Jeffersonians or Democratic-Republicans) which split off to the whigs, who eventually became the republicans.

I don't think the details of the party are actually that important, and it wasn't the topic of discussion. But whatever. I don't mind discussing history.


(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 38
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 9:41:55 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sserpentia

Point being, it was on party within a state which banned women from voting from the state constitution. It's not the Constitution of the United States which denies rights of women.


The Constitution would be a poor set of rights if it were locked in the 1780s. The Eighth Amendment would protect us against only the sort of punishment that was deemed cruel and unusual back then. As Justice Breyer has said, "Flogging as a punishment might have been fine in the 18th century. That doesn't mean that it would be OK ... today." And how could we say that the Fourth Amendment limits government wiretapping - when the founders could not have conceived of a telephone, much less a tap?

Justice Scalia doesn't even have consistency on his side. After all, he has been happy to interpret the equal-protection clause broadly when it fits his purposes. In Bush v. Gore, he joined the majority that stopped the vote recount in Florida in 2000 - because they said equal protection required it. Is there really any reason to believe that the drafters - who, after all, were trying to help black people achieve equality - intended to protect President Bush's right to have the same procedures for a vote recount in Broward County as he had in Miami-Dade? (If Justice Scalia had been an equal-protection originalist in that case, he would have focused on the many black Floridians whose votes were not counted - not on the white President who wanted to stop counting votes.)

Even worse, while Justice Scalia argues for writing women out of the Constitution, there is another group he has been working hard to write in: corporations. The word "corporation" does not appear in the Constitution, and there is considerable evidence that the founders were worried about corporate influence. But in a landmark ruling earlier this year, Justice Scalia joined a narrow majority in striking down longstanding limits on corporate spending in federal elections, insisting that they violated the First Amendment.

It is a strange view of the Constitution to say that when it says every "person" must have "equal protection," it does not protect women, but that freedom of "speech" - something only humans were capable of in 1787 and today - guarantees corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

source

It becomes more interesting if you read the whole article.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Sserpentia)
Profile   Post #: 39
RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. - 9/23/2010 2:16:23 PM   
FatDomDaddy


Posts: 3183
Joined: 1/31/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sserpentia

Actually, the whigs were only around for about 15 years. From the mid 30's to 50. It's still factually accurate. Jefferson started the party (call it the Jeffersonians or Democratic-Republicans) which split off to the whigs, who eventually became the republicans.

I don't think the details of the party are actually that important, and it wasn't the topic of discussion. But whatever. I don't mind discussing history.




Ss...

as much as I hate to admit it, Ken is correct. Jefferson's Democratic Republicans are the direct ancestor's of today Democrat Party. That is why the Democrats every year celebrate with a Jefferson/Jackson Day.

The Federalists, died out but were on the wane outside of New England by the end of Jefferson's second term so much so that even John Quincy Adams had turned Republican. The Federalist were dead as a dornail following the War of 1812 and from the last Congress of The Madison admin through to Jackson Adminstration, there was one real political party in the United States The Democrat Republican Party.

As the western and southern democrat populists movement grew, there was a split in DRP into the Quincy led National Republicans and the Andrew Jackon led Democrat Republicans.... BOTH claiming Jefferson as thier founder. The name Democrats comes from this time. If one backed the Jacksonian Platform, one was labled a Democrat. If you backed the Quincy led side of the DRP you were a Nationalist. The now Jacksonian Democrats lost the first battle but won the war (so to speak) for Jefferson's Legacy and are the modern Democrat Party of today. The National Republican died. Probably 60-65% of the NR polilticans folded back to the Jackson side, the rest became...

The Whigs and they were a whole new party with no direct ties to Jefferson.

They died too.

Then The Republican Party the grew out as a whole new party, some Free Labor, some former Whigs, some Abolitionist Northern Democrats, also with no direct ties to Jefferson.

That's why Republican's celebrate with a Lincoln Day.

Jefferson was a do as I say, not as I do Politican... he'd fit right in with today's Democrats.



< Message edited by FatDomDaddy -- 9/23/2010 2:32:10 PM >

(in reply to Sserpentia)
Profile   Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Justice Scalia is at it again. Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.141