or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 350

post #5236 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I don't know what "some of" them did or didn't argue. I realize that attacking batshit crazy strawman arguments is a popular sport around here, but I've never quite gotten the appeal.

And fatties like Scalia never like people getting in front of them at the buffet table.


We are ships passing in the night. But I'm glad you refer to the state's right interpretation as batshit crazy.
post #5237 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

We are ships passing in the night. But I'm glad you refer to the state's right interpretation as batshit crazy.

Well, 2A as a state right = nobody gets guns ever would certainly be a batshit argument.

2A as a state right isn't quite as batshit crazy, but I do think it's totally wrong -- at least at this point in history.

The whole individual vs. state's rights distinction was a bit murkier back when they were drafting the Constitution with dinosaur quills, the states were really seen as the representatives of the "people" (no direct election of Senators, etc.) and the Bill of Rights was seen almost exclusively as a bulwark against unwarranted expansions of federal power. For good or ill, though, we're long past that. 14th Amendment, reconstruction, blah blah.
post #5238 of 5465
All this talk about the text of the constitution and what it was understood to mean when it was written is dangerous. It's exactly what Scalia would have wanted us to do, to advance his right-wing agenda.
post #5239 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

All this talk about the text of the constitution and what it was understood to mean when it was written is dangerous. It's exactly what Scalia would have wanted us to do, to advance his right-wing agenda.

Or what some/many gun control advocates want us to do with the Second. Not only the original intent but also muskets.
post #5240 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Or what some/many gun control advocates want us to do with the Second. Not only the original intent but also muskets.

Stop saying "original intent." That's not what originalism means, not what Scalia was famous for advocating. If Jefferson had secretly intended to sabotage the revolution when he wrote the declaration of independence, would that mean we'd still be part of Britain and have to leave the EU, too?

Originalism looks at the meaning of what was actually written into law, at the time it was written.
post #5241 of 5465
Is that a lawful order? ^ Up to you if you want to risk it, Pio.
post #5242 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Stop saying "original intent." That's not what originalism means, not what Scalia was famous for advocating. If Jefferson had secretly intended to sabotage the revolution when he wrote the declaration of independence, would that mean we'd still be part of Britain and have to leave the EU, too?

Originalism looks at the meaning of what was actually written into law, at the time it was written.

Well, if we want to get into a pissing match the bolded is actually incorrect. Originalism is an overarching school of legal thought that includes both Original Intent and Original Meaning. So you are correct in that Scalia backed Original Meaning but incorrect in asserting Originalism =! Original Intent as the later is subsumed by the former.

Feel better?
post #5243 of 5465
Does anyone actually advocate for "original intent" in the sense of actual, perhaps undisclosed intent in the sense of thinking it matters whether some of the drafters had their fingers crossed or thought it was Opposites Day?
post #5244 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Well, if we want to get into a pissing match the bolded is actually incorrect. Originalism is an overarching school of legal thought that includes both Original Intent and Original Meaning. So you are correct in that Scalia backed Original Meaning but incorrect in asserting Originalism =! Original Intent as the later is subsumed by the former.

Feel better?

If you were going to make a dictionary entry or a wikipedia article on originalism you might include original intent since it's so often confused for it. Otherwise, original meaning is a dead letter. It survives basically as a misunderstanding, a straw man, or as an illustration of what originalism isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Does anyone actually advocate for "original intent" in the sense of actual, perhaps undisclosed intent in the sense of thinking it matters whether some of the drafters had their fingers crossed or thought it was Opposites Day?

Does anyone actually advocate original intent at all? I was just trying to come up with a hyperbolic illustration of why intent's not the thing that matters.
post #5245 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


Does anyone actually advocate original intent at all? I was just trying to come up with a hyperbolic illustration of why intent's not the thing that matters.
Dunno. I thought you were distinguishing an actual thing that you don't believe can fairly be ascribed to Scalia from something that can. But maybe your point was more a semantic one.
post #5246 of 5465
I'm not going to look any of this up, because its the afternoon and hot outside, but my roll-out-of-bed recollection is:

Original intent: What were the dudes thinking when they came up with the language. Look at extraneous sources for guidance.

Strict construction: Read the words alone.

Everything else: Make it up to fit your political beliefs.
post #5247 of 5465
On this topic, did anyone catch Judge Posner's op ed this week?
post #5248 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pennglock View Post

On this topic, did anyone catch Judge Posner's op ed this week?

I spent about ten seconds spot-skimming it. Posner's obviously a bright guy, but the parasitic alien life force of his insatiable ego long ago devoured his sanity and judgment from the inside. He's little more than an attention whore at this point.
post #5249 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I spent about ten seconds spot-skimming it. Posner's obviously a bright guy, but the parasitic alien life force of his insatiable ego long ago devoured his sanity and judgment from the inside. He's little more than an attention whore at this point.


That imagery rings true. What happened to him? He went from talked-about judge to laughing stock in less than 20 years. Something bad happens when the dinner party invites start pouring in.
post #5250 of 5465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

That imagery rings true. What happened to him? He went from talked-about judge to laughing stock in less than 20 years. Something bad happens when the dinner party invites start pouring in.

My totally speculative and unfair guess is that when he was a rookie phenom he had SCOTUS ambitions but somewhere along the line came to the conclusion that he'd missed his window and shifted into "fuck it" mode.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.