Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
That is semantics. So now you agree it isn't a fantasy. "Originalist" just means they interpret the baseline. BTW - ACB is brilliant from the brief glimpses I have seen of her. Smarter than Kavanaugh and or Roberts. She is going to be a very strong justice. What do you guys do in the UK in terms of courts and such?Your language is vague, but betrays the problem. It's a baseline, or a starting point. I agree with that. Once you leave that starting point, you're no longer being originalist.No. Not remotely. It is a baseline. A fantasy is something that isn't real. Go back to my theater/Netflix example. We have a baseline and now we take the best of best in legal matters and have them interpret it.
Who decides what it originally meant?
The fantasy is that you can use original intent to determine modern day problems. You can't. It's impossible. The original intent has to be stretched and distorted beyond all recognition to get anywhere close to apply to many (maybe most) modern day cases.That is semantics. So now you agree it isn't a fantasy. "Originalist" just means they interpret the baseline. BTW - ACB is brilliant from the brief glimpses I have seen of her. Smarter than Kavanaugh and or Roberts. She is going to be a very strong justice. What do you guys do in the UK in terms of courts and such?
If she does not serve as the first female chief justice, it will be a tragedy.That is semantics. So now you agree it isn't a fantasy. "Originalist" just means they interpret the baseline. BTW - ACB is brilliant from the brief glimpses I have seen of her. Smarter than Kavanaugh and or Roberts. She is going to be a very strong justice. What do you guys do in the UK in terms of courts and such?Your language is vague, but betrays the problem. It's a baseline, or a starting point. I agree with that. Once you leave that starting point, you're no longer being originalist.No. Not remotely. It is a baseline. A fantasy is something that isn't real. Go back to my theater/Netflix example. We have a baseline and now we take the best of best in legal matters and have them interpret it.
I disagree that it is impossible. I explained why and you agreed. It is an art not a science. Hence why the lawyers makes so much $$$$ so the can interpret shit and argue. We just don't wear the funny wigs that you do.The fantasy is that you can use original intent to determine modern day problems. You can't. It's impossible. The original intent has to be stretched and distorted beyond all recognition to get anywhere close to apply to many (maybe most) modern day cases.That is semantics. So now you agree it isn't a fantasy. "Originalist" just means they interpret the baseline. BTW - ACB is brilliant from the brief glimpses I have seen of her. Smarter than Kavanaugh and or Roberts. She is going to be a very strong justice. What do you guys do in the UK in terms of courts and such?
So.....Amend???The fantasy is that you can use original intent to determine modern day problems. You can't. It's impossible. The original intent has to be stretched and distorted beyond all recognition to get anywhere close to apply to many (maybe most) modern day cases.That is semantics. So now you agree it isn't a fantasy. "Originalist" just means they interpret the baseline. BTW - ACB is brilliant from the brief glimpses I have seen of her. Smarter than Kavanaugh and or Roberts. She is going to be a very strong justice. What do you guys do in the UK in terms of courts and such?
Why are you interpreting the law to solve problems? Activism? The court is not a super legislature. As has been mentioned several times, an amendment process exists, and has been used. I would argue that 90% of the Constitution is quite clear and applicable. There is no need to stretch its meaning.The fantasy is that you can use original intent to determine modern day problems. You can't. It's impossible. The original intent has to be stretched and distorted beyond all recognition to get anywhere close to apply to many (maybe most) modern day cases.That is semantics. So now you agree it isn't a fantasy. "Originalist" just means they interpret the baseline. BTW - ACB is brilliant from the brief glimpses I have seen of her. Smarter than Kavanaugh and or Roberts. She is going to be a very strong justice. What do you guys do in the UK in terms of courts and such?
Interpreting the law to solve problems is exactly what the courts were intended to do. SCOTUS settles disputes that are inevitable in law. The problem I has is that the circumstances we find ourselves in (or at least the matters that the SCOTUS has to deal with) are so far removed from the original document.Why are you interpreting the law to solve problems? Activism? The court is not a super legislature. As has been mentioned several times, an amendment process exists, and has been used. I would argue that 90% of the Constitution is quite clear and applicable. There is no need to stretch its meaning.
It still seems odd to look at the law for effect. Doesn't that seem to be looking for an outcome outside of what is actually written? The cases before the court are interpreting the constitutionality of a case, and not how to solve a problem. This all goes back to using amendments to solve conditions that exist in current times.Interpreting the law to solve problems is exactly what the courts were intended to do. SCOTUS settles disputes that are inevitable in law. The problem I has is that the circumstances we find ourselves in (or at least the matters that the SCOTUS has to deal with) are so far removed from the original document.Why are you interpreting the law to solve problems? Activism? The court is not a super legislature. As has been mentioned several times, an amendment process exists, and has been used. I would argue that 90% of the Constitution is quite clear and applicable. There is no need to stretch its meaning.
Just got an alert on my phone about the census case going to SCOTUS. Trump wants the Census to apportion seats by legal residents and exclude illegal immigrants. Okay. What does the original document have to say about that? Nothing. Know why? Because there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1787. The entire concept of an illegal immigrant didn't occur until about a century later. Original intent cannot be used to determine the outcome of this case.
I get what you're saying, but why shouldn't the court consider the repercussions of their actions? If a decision follows some strict legal code but results in adverse consequence for the nation, is that a better outcome? For instance, the Dredd Scott decision rested on originalism but from our perspective, was a complete violation of fundamental human rights.It still seems odd to look at the law for effect. Doesn't that seem to be looking for an outcome outside of what is actually written? The cases before the court are interpreting the constitutionality of a case, and not how to solve a problem. This all goes back to using amendments to solve conditions that exist in current times.
People who can actually read.Who decides what it originally meant?
What are you talking about?Sorry, someone who lives under a Middle Ages Monarchy has no say.
If she does not serve as the first female chief justice, it will be a tragedy.That is semantics. So now you agree it isn't a fantasy. "Originalist" just means they interpret the baseline. BTW - ACB is brilliant from the brief glimpses I have seen of her. Smarter than Kavanaugh and or Roberts. She is going to be a very strong justice. What do you guys do in the UK in terms of courts and such?Your language is vague, but betrays the problem. It's a baseline, or a starting point. I agree with that. Once you leave that starting point, you're no longer being originalist.No. Not remotely. It is a baseline. A fantasy is something that isn't real. Go back to my theater/Netflix example. We have a baseline and now we take the best of best in legal matters and have them interpret it.
The SC is spelled out in the Constitution, Stupid.If that were true, we wouldn't need a SC. They were having arguments about what it meant before the document was even 20 years old.Read English? The language has not changed much since it was written.Who decides what it originally meant?
Interpreting the law to solve problems is exactly what the courts were intended to do. SCOTUS settles disputes that are inevitable in law. The problem I has is that the circumstances we find ourselves in (or at least the matters that the SCOTUS has to deal with) are so far removed from the original document.Why are you interpreting the law to solve problems? Activism? The court is not a super legislature. As has been mentioned several times, an amendment process exists, and has been used. I would argue that 90% of the Constitution is quite clear and applicable. There is no need to stretch its meaning.
Just got an alert on my phone about the census case going to SCOTUS. Trump wants the Census to apportion seats by legal residents and exclude illegal immigrants. Okay. What does the original document have to say about that? Nothing. Know why? Because there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1787. The entire concept of an illegal immigrant didn't occur until about a century later. Original intent cannot be used to determine the outcome of this case.
Apparently, he thinks it means anyone who waltzes into the country should get representation in our Govt.Interpreting the law to solve problems is exactly what the courts were intended to do. SCOTUS settles disputes that are inevitable in law. The problem I has is that the circumstances we find ourselves in (or at least the matters that the SCOTUS has to deal with) are so far removed from the original document.Why are you interpreting the law to solve problems? Activism? The court is not a super legislature. As has been mentioned several times, an amendment process exists, and has been used. I would argue that 90% of the Constitution is quite clear and applicable. There is no need to stretch its meaning.
Just got an alert on my phone about the census case going to SCOTUS. Trump wants the Census to apportion seats by legal residents and exclude illegal immigrants. Okay. What does the original document have to say about that? Nothing. Know why? Because there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant in 1787. The entire concept of an illegal immigrant didn't occur until about a century later. Original intent cannot be used to determine the outcome of this case.
Does it mention Citizens?
Why do you think that?You being a Brit.
