Souter to retire from Supreme Court

[bmags]

what the hell? Do you think that health care reform will come from the bench?

[Chet Lemon]

I give props to Souter. He did the job for 19 years, decided to leave it, and will have a life after retirement.

[bmags]

Hey, historical question:

 

In team of rivals, Salmon Chase left to be a SC justice, but later they had him running for president again. Did he step down after a few years to run?

[Texsox]

No we don't. Not even close. That's just blatently wrong.

 

Again, if you don't like the laws that are written, you have a majority, pass the laws you want. But the laws need to be interpreted against a Constitutional standard, not "touchy feely" crap based on someone's definition of "rights". Those rights were pretty clearly spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Health Insurance, Retirement, etc. for "pursuit of happiness" is not a "right". Just like all the decisions of emotional crap aren't a true basis against the Constitution.

 

Personally, I disagree with Roe v. Wade, but I understand it's intent - I think that it's a stretch but again I understand the decision. I think it should be struck down, but not because abortion is bad, IMO, it's because it's a state issue. Just like "gay marriage".

 

Where does it say in the Constitution that abortion is a state issue? Sounds like that touchy feely crap you do not like As soon as you said abortion is bad, I knew you would be against Roe v. Wade.

[southsider2k5]

Where does it say in the Constitution that abortion is a state issue? Sounds like that touchy feely crap you do not like As soon as you said abortion is bad, I knew you would be against Roe v. Wade.

 

The part that saids all issues not addressed by the Constitution are left up to the states...

[Texsox]

The part that saids all issues not addressed by the Constitution are left up to the states...

 

Which is impractical in today's society. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee plane travel, the internet, telephones, etc. and the need for a cohesive national plan. We should be doing what is in our best interest, not Jefferson's.

 

I do not think it is in our best interest to run a country in 2009 based entirely on a 200+ year old document. It has to be a living document that adapts to our needs. However, conservatives would prefer rolling back the past 50 years and reverse Roe v. Wade, restrict pornographic materials, have prayer back in schools, define marriage as one man and one woman, decency on TV, less social programs. So I guess it isn't a stretch to go back another 150+ years

[lostfan]

The part that saids all issues not addressed by the Constitution are left up to the states...

10th amendment, which put into writing what was already known.

[lostfan]

Which is impractical in today's society. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee plane travel, the internet, telephones, etc. and the need for a cohesive national plan. We should be doing what is in our best interest, not Jefferson's.

 

I do not think it is in our best interest to run a country in 2009 based entirely on a 200+ year old document. It has to be a living document that adapts to our needs. However, conservatives would prefer rolling back the past 50 years and reverse Roe v. Wade, restrict pornographic materials, have prayer back in schools, define marriage as one man and one woman, decency on TV, less social programs. So I guess it isn't a stretch to go back another 150+ years

The fact that abortion, gay marriage etc. is or should be a state issue isn't something that's outdated in 2009.

 

I do find the "activist judges" argument to be a laughable one though, because probably 3/4 of the time you hear someone saying it, they're just mad that the judge did the opposite of what they wanted.

Edited May 4, 2009 by lostfan

[NorthSideSox72]

Which is impractical in today's society. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee plane travel, the internet, telephones, etc. and the need for a cohesive national plan. We should be doing what is in our best interest, not Jefferson's.

 

I do not think it is in our best interest to run a country in 2009 based entirely on a 200+ year old document. It has to be a living document that adapts to our needs. However, conservatives would prefer rolling back the past 50 years and reverse Roe v. Wade, restrict pornographic materials, have prayer back in schools, define marriage as one man and one woman, decency on TV, less social programs. So I guess it isn't a stretch to go back another 150+ years

Wait, you are saying 10A is impractical? Its the 2nd most important amendment in the bill of rights by most accounts. It is by far the most important limit on the federal government. It declares affirmative control over the scope of federal jurisdiction. Now, certainly, some new challenges need to be addressed (technology for example). But because the current law, the Constitution, makes it so... you have to prove why the federal government NEEDS to control something - not the other way around. Your suggestion earlier, saying that because something isn't in there that means the feds can do it, is the opposite of the intended purpose of 10A.

 

[Texsox]

Wait, you are saying 10A is impractical? Its the 2nd most important amendment in the bill of rights by most accounts. It is by far the most important limit on the federal government. It declares affirmative control over the scope of federal jurisdiction. Now, certainly, some new challenges need to be addressed (technology for example). But because the current law, the Constitution, makes it so... you have to prove why the federal government NEEDS to control something - not the other way around. Your suggestion earlier, saying that because something isn't in there that means the feds can do it, is the opposite of the intended purpose of 10A.

 

What is impractical is deciding everything on knowledge from 200+ years ago and NOT taking into account what is in our best interest as a nation. There is no way the men who sat around and wrote the Constitution could foresee everything the Constitution would be called upon to solve. So it takes people, not machines, who can think and use their knowledge, to interpret.

 

What I was trying to say is the decisions are usually about what is *not* obvious in the Constitution. If it was spelled out in black letter law, it would usually never get to the Supreme Court. So to suggest that the Justices should not think, just look at the law and tell us what it says, is impractical.

[lostfan]

What is impractical is deciding everything on knowledge from 200+ years ago and NOT taking into account what is in our best interest as a nation. There is no way the men who sat around and wrote the Constitution could foresee everything the Constitution would be called upon to solve. So it takes people, not machines, who can think and use their knowledge, to interpret.

 

What I was trying to say is the decisions are usually about what is *not* obvious in the Constitution. If it was spelled out in black letter law, it would usually never get to the Supreme Court. So to suggest that the Justices should not think, just look at the law and tell us what it says, is impractical.

This much I agree with, because if it wasn't true, we wouldn't even have a Supreme Court.

[kapkomet]

what the hell? Do you think that health care reform will come from the bench?

No, I'm just talking about the over-reach of our federal government and using those for examples. Sorry to make that paralell.

[kapkomet]

What is impractical is deciding everything on knowledge from 200+ years ago and NOT taking into account what is in our best interest as a nation. There is no way the men who sat around and wrote the Constitution could foresee everything the Constitution would be called upon to solve. So it takes people, not machines, who can think and use their knowledge, to interpret.

 

What I was trying to say is the decisions are usually about what is *not* obvious in the Constitution. If it was spelled out in black letter law, it would usually never get to the Supreme Court. So to suggest that the Justices should not think, just look at the law and tell us what it says, is impractical.

You are confusing the word "think" and "interpret" and "emotion". What I mean by that is, of course, you have to think to interpret. But, someone's feelings about a law should never enter the picture. Like I said, I understand Roe v. Wade, even though I may disagree with it. I respect that ruling more then a lot of other ones - but where I don't like it is it now enters as I already said a place where states should decide. Who cares if I am "against" it, because that's my "emotion" if you will, and my point was (you said it) that I can not agree with a decision but still respect it, and that's false.

 

I think abortion as a MAJOR litmus test is asinine.

[southsider2k5]

Which is impractical in today's society. The framers of the Constitution could not foresee plane travel, the internet, telephones, etc. and the need for a cohesive national plan. We should be doing what is in our best interest, not Jefferson's.

 

I do not think it is in our best interest to run a country in 2009 based entirely on a 200+ year old document. It has to be a living document that adapts to our needs. However, conservatives would prefer rolling back the past 50 years and reverse Roe v. Wade, restrict pornographic materials, have prayer back in schools, define marriage as one man and one woman, decency on TV, less social programs. So I guess it isn't a stretch to go back another 150+ years

 

If it is impractical, then someone needs to get together and come up with something new. Until then, it is the law of the land.

[kapkomet]

If it is impractical, then someone needs to get together and come up with something new. Until then, it is the law of the land.

They are. It's called "living and breathing". And it's wrong.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

They are. It's called "living and breathing". And it's wrong.

 

 

The problem with strict textualism is that many of the rights we hold dear would not be around. The biggest would be the right to privacy. I would agree the emotion (or personal feelings) should be left out, but that's just not possible since we're all human. I get angered when the Court creates law which overturns what a legislature wants (most of the recent decisions with gay marriage/homosexual "protections," affirmative action cases, etc) but I think those cases are very rare (one or two a decade).

 

 

[bmags]

Okay, how bout this one, folks:

 

For a long time, the bill or rights ONLY applied to federal laws. Meaning, the FEDERAL gov't couldn't take away freedom of the press, etc., it was up to INDIVIDUAL states to uphold those same laws.

 

The view that the Bill of rights was a guarantee to CITIZENS of the U.S. did not come around for quite some time. What a liberal interpretation.

[StrangeSox]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

 

The 9th Circuit just recently held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated. First time any court has found that.

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

 

The 9th Circuit just recently held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated. First time any court has found that.

can you translate into plain English? Legal mumbo-jumbo confuses me. I work better with examples.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

 

The 9th Circuit just recently held that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated. First time any court has found that.

Particularly interesting that its the 9th doing this, as they tend to be a very left-leaning circuit.

 

I seem to recall a year or two ago, we have a big old debate in the Buster about the concept of Connstitutional incorporation. That was a good one.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

can you translate into plain English? Legal mumbo-jumbo confuses me. I work better with examples.

There is no plain English translation of this - it is the epitome of legal mumbo jumbo. I'm sure some folks could take a valiant stab at it though.

 

[Balta1701]

Particularly interesting that its the 9th doing this, as they tend to be a very left-leaning circuit.

That's one of those little things put out there after one or two decisions 5+ years ago that really isn't well supported by the facts. Hell, Jay "torture memo" Bybee is on the 9th circuit, at least until he's impeached. Here's a wee bit of support for that.

[StrangeSox]

Basically, if an Amendment wasn't incorporated, those rights would apply only to Federal law. The US Government couldn't make a law restricting free speech, but the State of Illinois could if it wasn't against the state's constitution. When the Amendments are incorporated, it means that the federal laws supersede the states' rights. If the incorporation of the 2nd holds, you'll likely see things like the gun laws in Chicago struck down for violating the 2nd; until this court ruling, they could violate the 2nd (or any other non-incorporated Amendment) as much as their own state constitution allowed.

 

At least that's how I understand it.

[NorthSideSox72]

Basically, if an Amendment wasn't incorporated, those rights would apply only to Federal law. The US Government couldn't make a law restricting free speech, but the State of Illinois could if it wasn't against the state's constitution. When the Amendments are incorporated, it means that the federal laws supersede the states' rights. If the incorporation of the 2nd holds, you'll likely see things like the gun laws in Chicago struck down for violating the 2nd; until this court ruling, they could violate the 2nd (or any other non-incorporated Amendment) as much as their own state constitution allowed.

 

At least that's how I understand it.

Sort of - and this is where the debate comes in. What you said is true, however, states cannot enact laws in contradiction of federal law (Constitutional law included). So now, really, the states can't do that. Well, they can, but its unconstitutional, and would be stricken down.

 

[StrangeSox]

Sort of - and this is where the debate comes in. What you said is true, however, states cannot enact laws in contradiction of federal law (Constitutional law included). So now, really, the states can't do that. Well, they can, but its unconstitutional, and would be stricken down.

 

then its a good thing I'm not a constitutional lawyer