Community Messageboard: Your whole rant lacks any logic by HyogaRott

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Your whole rant lacks any logic HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 12/12/2012 03:46:34 PM

"I don't care about x, I care about x"? Was that supposed to be a joke?

No it is not a joke, it is grammar. What the PEOPLE intended when they wrote the document is not relevant, it is what the WORDS they actually wrote intend. This is really rather simple, it is basic contract law.

Of course, it is not even THAT simple; a literally limited First Amendment would not protect your right to gush about Scalia online (since that is an electronic transmission, not speech or publishing,) and a literally unlimited Second Amendment WOULD ensure my absolute right to keep and bear ICBMs.

Publishing on the internet is still publishing, and YEAH, the second amendment does allow the individual to have military grade weapons, just good luck trying to afford an ICBM. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, get a majority of folks together and CHANGE it, not 9 guys with a lifetime appointment.

“They want society to do things their way now and forever, coast to coast.” That is Scalias argument FOR letting him define the Constitutions every penstroke in excruciating detail, now and forever; sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. He quickly gives a good example of why that would be so foolishly dangerous: “My constitution is a very flexible one. There’s nothing in it about abortion and since there isn’t, it’s up to the citizens.” Scalias Constitution grants women no Fourth Amendment right to security against the search needed to prove an illegal abortion, nor a Fifth Amendment right against thereby incriminating themselves.

The written Constitution is ALREADY coast to coast law. He is against 9 people arbitrarily changing it regardless of the feelings of the MILLIONS of people who will be governed by their ruling. Your abortion examples are beyond stupid. 4th and 5th amendment rights are universal. No search without consent or court order (probable cause) can be performed, and at that point there is no 5th argument. Police exercising a search warrant on your house is not a 5th amendment issue. Police conducting a sobriety test with legitimate probable cause is not a 5th amendment issue. Try again.

That is not so shocking though; Scalias stated "understanding" of the Constitution is that "With the right structure, you will preserve freedom even without a bill of rights." The Constitutions authors disagreed: THAT IS WHY THEY ADDED THE BILL OF RIGHTS! That, and the fact the states all refused to ratify it until they did.

No, the actual authors of the Constitution agreed with him. Learn a little history before spouting off. The authors believed that because, the document states that all powers not EXPRESSLY granted to the federal government reside with the states and the people, the "Bill of Rights" was not needed, and silly. The argument was that if they wasted their time expressly stating several things that the Government could NOT do (when the Constitution already stated that they could ONLY do what they were specifically empowered to do and nothing else), then stupid people would later assume that those were the ONLY things that the government could not do. Guess what, they were right. The adding of the Bill of Rights was a political move to help insure its passage by the paranoid fringe. The basic attitude was "Sure, whatever, it does not matter what you put in the amendments, but if it makes you feel better go for it."

The Constitution is obviously not a blank check. It has specific words with specific meanings, but if all the latter were as unambigously cut and dried as Scalia makes them sound he would be out of a job. That they are not makes me WISH he were. Scalia is arguably the most activist justice on the SCOTUS; it is only debatable because, although Kagans tenure has just begun, she will likely be every bit as bad (just in the other direction.) Partisan activism does not become impartial jurisprudence nor sage wisdom just because one happens to share the activists partisanship. I wish Scalia no ill will, but only hope he soon retires and lets a more able justice take his place. His infamous skill at inverting the meaning of words is more visibly failing each day. He has become a caricature of his once intimidating self.

Ummm, they are cut and dried, crystal clear, and unambiguous. Except when someone with a political agenda wants to try and make it say something that it does not. His job (and, to an extent, the job of the entire judiciary) is to PRESERVE the Constitution and Prevent the Legislative and Executive branches from exceeding their constitutionally granted authority. His job is NOT to create a new Constitution.

Reply to message

SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia is brilliant, just brilliant -

Anonymous2000 - 11/12/2012 05:09:19 AM 936 Views

WTF does "I don’t care what their intent was. I care what it was that they intended" mean?

Joel - 11/12/2012 09:03:23 PM 506 Views

Yeah I read that twice to see if that was right *NM* Dark Knight - 11/12/2012 09:36:55 PM 247 Views

Part of me pities Scalias decline, because he could once nimbly and convincly argue black is white. Joel - 12/12/2012 07:09:56 PM 472 Views

Re: your post. Stephen - 12/12/2012 07:18:18 PM 452 Views

You are quite right; I never noticed that until now.

Joel - 12/12/2012 07:29:08 PM 553 Views

Not quite HyogaRott - 12/12/2012 08:16:27 PM 564 Views

Poes Law. Joel - 16/12/2012 01:42:55 PM 474 Views

More like disapeared in a puff of Florida's own law that they were trying to ignore. HyogaRott - 12/12/2012 08:13:13 PM 472 Views

actually..... moondog - 12/12/2012 08:32:58 PM 555 Views

Re: actually..... HyogaRott - 12/12/2012 09:39:01 PM 455 Views

Florida state law does not and did not prohibit statewide recounts. Joel - 16/12/2012 01:45:52 PM 473 Views

Spoken like a true lib.....I could have written that for you. Anonymous2000 - 12/12/2012 05:08:42 AM 503 Views

The people of WA and CO just decided pot should be legal; think Scalia agrees? Joel - 12/12/2012 07:25:11 PM 487 Views

FreshMints decided that the almond aroma of radioactive arsenic is very pleasing... HyogaRott - 12/12/2012 08:09:39 PM 513 Views

I am aware of Scalias "logic," and his rejection of it about a year later with Robamacare. Joel - 16/12/2012 01:51:16 PM 494 Views

But you didn't. Dannymac - 13/12/2012 04:06:05 PM 480 Views

Yup, yup; the Constitution is all about majority rule WITH minority rights. Joel - 16/12/2012 01:56:15 PM 413 Views

Your whole rant lacks any logic HyogaRott - 12/12/2012 03:46:34 PM 512 Views

+1 - logic is not his strong suit. *NM* Anonymous2000 - 12/12/2012 04:21:09 PM 200 Views

His comment references the authors (NOT words) intent in both negative and affirmative. Joel - 12/12/2012 06:45:02 PM 472 Views

Rebuttal HyogaRott - 12/12/2012 07:58:41 PM 511 Views

Only nominally.

Joel - 16/12/2012 03:54:38 PM 471 Views

I was stumped by his phrasing as well A Deathwatch Guard - 12/12/2012 09:31:53 PM 367 Views

But we must go by his words and his understanding of their meaning, without interpretation.

Joel - 16/12/2012 01:40:23 PM 462 Views

The SCotUS is no place for raging homophobes. Mndrew - 13/12/2012 04:48:30 AM 605 Views

Sorry you don't like it, but what he said is true. HyogaRott - 13/12/2012 03:11:42 PM 531 Views

Lol. Homophobia is synonymous w/ homonegativism. It's not meant to convey a true phobia *NM* kHz1000 - 13/12/2012 03:28:01 PM 312 Views

Only for people who don't know actually know how to read and understand words. Nice spin though. *NM* HyogaRott - 13/12/2012 05:54:29 PM 190 Views

So then what we need is a definition of homophobia? Jeordam - 13/12/2012 09:56:15 PM 551 Views

Re: So then what we need is a definition of homophobia? kHz1000 - 13/12/2012 11:16:46 PM 497 Views

-phobe : Greek -phobos, adj. derivative of phóbos fear, panic HyogaRott - 13/12/2012 11:32:14 PM 506 Views

Do you have a similar problem with "xenophobia?" Because it's exactly the same thing. Ghavrel - 14/12/2012 01:30:24 AM 437 Views

xenophobia is the fear of the alien... WTF are you trying to say? HyogaRott - 14/12/2012 03:03:09 AM 500 Views

No. You are patently, objectively incorrect. Ghavrel - 14/12/2012 08:39:00 AM 431 Views

An aside. Stephen - 14/12/2012 01:21:32 PM 506 Views

Don't believe me, ask a Greek it is after all THEIR word. I gave you some extra capitals, happy now? *NM* HyogaRott - 14/12/2012 02:56:09 PM 313 Views

stop being obtuse moondog - 14/12/2012 05:10:41 PM 479 Views

Hmmmm lets see, people misuse a word, perverting its meaning... HyogaRott - 14/12/2012 07:29:11 PM 453 Views

If everyone "misuses" a word, that becomes an acceptable use of it. Ghavrel - 14/12/2012 10:14:23 PM 466 Views

Re: If everyone "misuses" a word, that becomes an acceptable use of it. Novo - 15/12/2012 12:12:18 AM 485 Views

Always good to have your backing.

*NM* Ghavrel - 15/12/2012 03:50:14 AM 264 Views

and if everryone jumps off a cliff to splatter on the rocks I should just be a good little lemming. HyogaRott - 15/12/2012 07:13:27 AM 385 Views

actually, you have already chosen stupid by pretending the word means something it does not moondog - 15/12/2012 03:34:35 PM 405 Views

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, my friend John would strenuously disagree. HyogaRott - 16/12/2012 06:50:19 AM 521 Views

and you are a small-minded buffoon who can't come up with real arguments so you resort to nitpicking moondog - 17/12/2012 11:48:25 PM 453 Views

Double post. *NM* Ghavrel - 14/12/2012 10:14:50 PM 217 Views

that's glory for you! moondog - 14/12/2012 10:44:30 PM 510 Views

So very conflicted, in so many ways....

Joel - 16/12/2012 04:14:08 PM 612 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="268529">
<quote id="268495">"I don't care about <i>x</i>, I care about <i>x</i>"?  Was that supposed to be a joke?</quote>
No it is not a joke, it is grammar.  What the PEOPLE intended when they wrote the document is not relevant, it is what the WORDS they actually wrote intend.  This is really rather simple, it is basic contract law.

<quote id="268495">Of course, it is not even THAT simple; a literally limited First Amendment would not protect your right to gush about Scalia online (since that is an electronic transmission, not speech or publishing,) and a literally unlimited Second Amendment WOULD ensure my absolute right to keep and bear ICBMs.</quote>
Publishing on the internet is still publishing, and YEAH, the second amendment does allow the individual to have military grade weapons, just good luck trying to afford an ICBM.  If you don't like the 2nd amendment, get a majority of folks together and CHANGE it, not 9 guys with a lifetime appointment.

<quote id="268495">“They want society to do things their way now and forever, coast to coast.”  That is Scalias argument FOR letting him define the Constitutions every penstroke in excruciating detail, now and forever; sounds like the pot calling the kettle black.  He quickly gives a good example of why that would be so foolishly dangerous:  “My constitution is a very flexible one. There’s nothing in it about abortion and since there isn’t, it’s up to the citizens.”  Scalias Constitution grants women no Fourth Amendment right to security against the search needed to prove an illegal abortion, nor a Fifth Amendment right against thereby incriminating themselves.</quote>
The written Constitution is ALREADY coast to coast law.  He is against 9 people arbitrarily changing it regardless of the feelings of the MILLIONS of people who will be governed by their ruling. Your abortion examples are beyond stupid.  4th and 5th amendment rights are universal.  No search without consent or court order (probable cause) can be performed, and at that point there is no 5th argument.  Police exercising a search warrant on your house is not a 5th amendment issue.  Police conducting a sobriety test with legitimate probable cause is not a 5th amendment issue.  Try again.

<quote id="268495">That is not so shocking though; Scalias stated "understanding" of the Constitution is that "With the right structure, you will preserve freedom even without a bill of rights."  The Constitutions authors disagreed:  THAT IS WHY THEY ADDED THE BILL OF RIGHTS!  That, and the fact the states all refused to ratify it until they did.</quote>
No, the actual authors of the Constitution agreed with him. Learn a little history before spouting off.  The authors believed that because, the document states that all powers not EXPRESSLY granted to the federal government reside with the states and the people, the "Bill of Rights" was not needed, and silly.  The argument was that if they wasted their time expressly stating several things that the Government could NOT do (when the Constitution already stated that they could ONLY do what they were specifically empowered to do and nothing else), then stupid people would later assume that those were the ONLY things that the government could not do.  Guess what, they were right.  The adding of the Bill of Rights was a political move to help insure its passage by the paranoid fringe.  The basic attitude was "Sure, whatever, it does not matter what you put in the amendments, but if it makes you feel better go for it."

<quote id="268495">The Constitution is obviously not a blank check.  It has specific words with specific meanings, but if all the latter were as unambigously cut and dried as Scalia makes them sound he would be out of a job.  That they are not makes me WISH he were.  Scalia is arguably the most activist justice on the SCOTUS; it is only debatable because, although Kagans tenure has just begun, she will likely be every bit as bad (just in the other direction.)  Partisan activism does not become impartial jurisprudence nor sage wisdom just because one happens to share the activists partisanship.  I wish Scalia no ill will, but only hope he soon retires and lets a more able justice take his place.  His infamous skill at inverting the meaning of words is more visibly failing each day.  He has become a caricature of his once intimidating self.</quote>
Ummm, they are cut and dried, crystal clear, and unambiguous.  Except when someone with a political agenda wants to try and make it say something that it does not.  His job (and, to an extent, the job of the entire judiciary) is to PRESERVE the Constitution and Prevent the Legislative and Executive branches from exceeding their constitutionally granted authority.  His job is NOT to create a new Constitution.

</quote>

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password