Richard Posner announces sudden retirement from federal appeals court in Chicago

[Disir]

Judge Richard A. Posner, one of the nation's leading appellate judges, whose acerbic wit attracted an almost cultlike following within legal circles, is retiring after more than three decades with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

Posner, 78, is stepping down effective Saturday, according to a news release Friday afternoon from the 7th Circuit. He was appointed to the court by President Ronald Reagan in 1981 and served as its chief judge from 1993 to 2000.

Posner said in a statement he has written more than 3,300 opinions in his time on the bench and is "proud to have promoted a pragmatic approach to judging." He said he spent his career applying his view that "judicial opinions should be easy to understand and that judges should focus on the right and wrong in every case."

Posner's biting and often brilliant written opinions as well as his unrelenting questioning from the bench have made him an icon of the court for years.
Richard Posner announces sudden retirement from federal appeals court in Chicago

That's a huge loss.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This Richard Posner, who said this?

Why Don’t Law School Professors Have Practical Experience These Days?

I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today​

A statement like that ought to disqualify anyone from any public office in this country.

 

[Disir]

Every summer at the end of the Supreme Court term, Slate runs a “breakfast table” serving as a sort of year in review for the court. For several years, I've been one of the participants in this round-up, along with law professors, lawyers, and legal journalists.

Some of my contributions this year have drawn an unusual number of criticisms, focused on language I used that could be read as suggesting that I don’t think the Constitution has any role to play in interpreting the law—that it should be forgotten; that constitutional law is and must and maybe should be entirely a judicial creation, like fields of common law.

That was not my intention, and I apologize if carelessness resulted in my misleading readers. What I think is undeniably true is that while the Constitution contains a number of specific provisions—such as the prohibition of titles of nobility (a slap at our former English rulers, who mainly were kings and aristocrats), the requirement that the president be at least 35 years old, and the very detailed provisions regarding congressional authority—many other provisions are quite vague. The vagueness was almost certainly intentional, one reason being the tensions among the 13 states, which required compromise. Such compromises frequently involve avoidance of precision, thus allowing all the parties to the compromise to believe that their interests are not being neglected by the majority.

But the vagueness of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, both being 18th-century creations, limits the ability of modern judges to derive results in modern constitutional cases from the text of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, and indeed from many of the later amendments to the Constitution as well, such as the 14th Amendment with its much-debated Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities clauses. The framers of the Constitution were very intelligent and experienced, but they could no more foresee conditions in the 21st century than we can foresee conditions in the 23rd century. So the choice for the modern judge is: dismiss the bulk of the Constitution as nonjusticiable because it doesn't address modern problems, or decide many constitutional cases by broad interpretation of the Constitution's vague provisions, recognizing that interpretation so understood is not what we usually understand by the word. If I say "I understand what you just said," it means that you have successfully communicated to me some idea or proposal, or what have you. But the framers of the Constitution cannot communicate with us regarding issues that they deliberately left vague, probably because they couldn't agree on how or whether the text of the Constitution resolved the issues. (We know about these differences from the debates between the Federalists and Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party during the early years of the new nation.) Today’s judges are left to do the best they can, within the boundaries they perceive in phrases such as "due process," or "cruel or unusual." Their efforts in the aggregate create "constitutional law" based on what is sometimes called the "living Constitution."

That's all I meant to say, and it is by no means original with me. I regret not having been clearer.

Richard A. Posner

A Clarification About the Role of the Constitution in Constitutional Law

Yep, that one.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

A Clarification About the Role of the Constitution in Constitutional Law

Yep, that one.

His “clarification” really doesn't change anything. Even in that which you quoted, he states…

But the vagueness of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, both being 18th-century creations, limits the ability of modern judges to derive results in modern constitutional cases from the text of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, and indeed from many of the later amendments to the Constitution as well, such as the 14th Amendment with its much-debated Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities clauses. The framers of the Constitution were very intelligent and experienced, but they could no more foresee conditions in the 21st century than we can foresee conditions in the 23rd century. So the choice for the modern judge is: dismiss the bulk of the Constitution as nonjusticiable because it doesn't address modern problems, or decide many constitutional cases by broad interpretation of the Constitution's vague provisions, recognizing that interpretation so understood is not what we usually understand by the word.​

He's still taking the position that the Constitution is outdated, and “nonjusticiable”, and making the argument that judges should take broad license in interpreting it far away from its clear meaning.

Even in his excuse-making, he still reveals himself to be unfit for any public office in this country, especially the position of a judge charged with applying the Constitution. On making such excuses for his claimed inability to do so, he is, in effect, admitting his own abject incompetence.

 

[Disir]

A Clarification About the Role of the Constitution in Constitutional Law

Yep, that one.

His “clarification” really doesn't change anything. Even in that which you quoted, he states…

But the vagueness of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, both being 18th-century creations, limits the ability of modern judges to derive results in modern constitutional cases from the text of the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, and indeed from many of the later amendments to the Constitution as well, such as the 14th Amendment with its much-debated Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privileges and Immunities clauses. The framers of the Constitution were very intelligent and experienced, but they could no more foresee conditions in the 21st century than we can foresee conditions in the 23rd century. So the choice for the modern judge is: dismiss the bulk of the Constitution as nonjusticiable because it doesn't address modern problems, or decide many constitutional cases by broad interpretation of the Constitution's vague provisions, recognizing that interpretation so understood is not what we usually understand by the word.​

He's still taking the position that the Constitution is outdated, and “nonjusticiable”, and making the argument that judges should take broad license in interpreting it far away from its clear meaning.

Even in his excuse-making, he still reveals himself to be unfit for any public office in this country, especially the position of a judge charged with applying the Constitution. On making such excuses for his claimed inability to do so, he is, in effect, admitting his own abject incompetence.

He isn't making an excuse. It's pretty simple:

If you are one of those people that firmly believes that the original Bill of Rights pertained to you, as an individual, then you could not be more wrong. It didn't. You didn't have any rights. The states had rights but not you.
Bill of Rights and the Amendments to The Constitution < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond

The incorporation doctrine is a constitutional doctrine through which selected provisions of the Bill of Rights are made applicable to the states through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This means that state governments are held to the same standards as the Federal Government regarding certain constitutional rights. The Supreme Court could have used the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. However, in the Slaughter-House Cases 83 US 36, the Supreme Court held that the Privileges and Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment placed no restriction on the police powers of the state and it was intended to apply only to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and not the privileges and immunities of citizens of the individual states. This decision effectively put state laws beyond the review of the Supreme Court. To circumvent this, the Supreme Court began a process called “selective incorporation” by gradually applying selected provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process clause.
Incorporation Doctrine

The vast majority of those rights that were incorporated came about in the 1960s.


Can you go back to the original intent and have the 2nd amendment as an individual right? No.
Barron v Mayor and City Council of Baltimore 1833
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore

In fact, the 2nd amendment was not even an issue until the 1980s and then you start seeing it pop up every once in awhile. It was not fully incorporated until 2010. You, as an individual, did not have this right.
McDonald v. Chicago
{{meta.pageTitle}}

He is referring to arguments that have been ongoing for quite some time and questions stare decisis
the definition of stare decisis

 

[eflatminor]

Yes, he's the best friend a central planning progressive could have on the court.

Good riddance.

 

[Disir]

Love the non argument.

 

[eflatminor]

If only we could be free to interpret words the way we WISH they would have been written. Then words could me anything!

Legislating from the bench...it's not like that has cause problems throughout history or anything...

Pass.

Ben will call out this nonsense succinctly:

 

[Disir]

It is very difficult to take a man who reads Cosmopolitan seriously.

Secondly, when Posner says stare decisis is "stupid" he is a liberal but when Shapiro says stare decisis is "stupid" it's noteworthy.

Fuck Shapiro.

 

[eflatminor]

It is very difficult to take a man who reads Cosmopolitan seriously.

Secondly, when Posner says stare decisis is "stupid" he is a liberal but when Shapiro says stare decisis is "stupid" it's noteworthy.

Fuck Shapiro.

Yet your meddling judge advocates EXACTLY that which is spelled out in that Cosmo article.

Oh the irony.

It's your ilk that enact programs requiring forcible compliance. It's your ilk that changes law to favor one citizen over another. It's your ideology that is immoral. Own it.

Here's another leftist/progressive asshole having their head handed to them by Ben:

 

[Disir]

It is very difficult to take a man who reads Cosmopolitan seriously.

Secondly, when Posner says stare decisis is "stupid" he is a liberal but when Shapiro says stare decisis is "stupid" it's noteworthy.

Fuck Shapiro.

Yet your meddling judge advocates EXACTLY that which is spelled out in that Cosmo article.

Oh the irony.

It's your ilk that enact programs requiring forcible compliance. It's your ilk that changes law to favor one citizen over another. It's your ideology that is immoral. Own it.

Here's another leftist/progressive asshole having their head handed to them by Ben:

Um.........he isn't a meddling judge. Neither was Gorsuch. Fuck Shapiro. He bemoans the politicizing (ironically like Posner) unless it benefits him financially.

You know nothing about my ilk, nitwit. You are attempting to make arguments about shit you know nothing about.

 

[eflatminor]

It is very difficult to take a man who reads Cosmopolitan seriously.

Secondly, when Posner says stare decisis is "stupid" he is a liberal but when Shapiro says stare decisis is "stupid" it's noteworthy.

Fuck Shapiro.

Yet your meddling judge advocates EXACTLY that which is spelled out in that Cosmo article.

Oh the irony.

It's your ilk that enact programs requiring forcible compliance. It's your ilk that changes law to favor one citizen over another. It's your ideology that is immoral. Own it.

Here's another leftist/progressive asshole having their head handed to them by Ben:

Um.........he isn't a meddling judge. Neither was Gorsuch. Fuck Shapiro. He bemoans the politicizing (ironically like Posner) unless it benefits him financially.

You know nothing about my ilk, nitwit.

I see you have nothing to counter Shapiro's points or back up your claim of his financial motivation. Yes, we get you're capable of logical fallacies. It's what leftists do.

No shit Gorsuch isn't a meddler. He applies the law as written. Not so for progressive judges.

Your ilk is on full display for all to see. Own it.

 

[Disir]

It is very difficult to take a man who reads Cosmopolitan seriously.

Secondly, when Posner says stare decisis is "stupid" he is a liberal but when Shapiro says stare decisis is "stupid" it's noteworthy.

Fuck Shapiro.

Yet your meddling judge advocates EXACTLY that which is spelled out in that Cosmo article.

Oh the irony.

It's your ilk that enact programs requiring forcible compliance. It's your ilk that changes law to favor one citizen over another. It's your ideology that is immoral. Own it.

Here's another leftist/progressive asshole having their head handed to them by Ben:

Um.........he isn't a meddling judge. Neither was Gorsuch. Fuck Shapiro. He bemoans the politicizing (ironically like Posner) unless it benefits him financially.

You know nothing about my ilk, nitwit.

I see you have nothing to counter Shapiro's points or back up your claim of his financial motivation. Yes, we get you're capable of logical fallacies. It's what leftists do.

No shit Gorsuch isn't a meddler. He applies the law as written. Not so for progressive judges.

Your ilk is on full display for all to see. Own it.

Posner is not a Progressive judge. Hell, I am not a progressive. Posner and Gorsuch are in agreement over many things. Gorsuch himself discusses the limitations on Originalism. Shapiro even acknowledges it. Hence the BS politicizing.

The guy has his own show, pod cast etc. if you can't figure out pandering to a specific crowd and financial motivation then you are one lost puppy.

I already countered Shapiro's point in my earlier post. You just aren't bright enough to catch it.

 

[eflatminor]

It is very difficult to take a man who reads Cosmopolitan seriously.

Secondly, when Posner says stare decisis is "stupid" he is a liberal but when Shapiro says stare decisis is "stupid" it's noteworthy.

Fuck Shapiro.

Yet your meddling judge advocates EXACTLY that which is spelled out in that Cosmo article.

Oh the irony.

It's your ilk that enact programs requiring forcible compliance. It's your ilk that changes law to favor one citizen over another. It's your ideology that is immoral. Own it.

Here's another leftist/progressive asshole having their head handed to them by Ben:

Um.........he isn't a meddling judge. Neither was Gorsuch. Fuck Shapiro. He bemoans the politicizing (ironically like Posner) unless it benefits him financially.

You know nothing about my ilk, nitwit.

I see you have nothing to counter Shapiro's points or back up your claim of his financial motivation. Yes, we get you're capable of logical fallacies. It's what leftists do.

No shit Gorsuch isn't a meddler. He applies the law as written. Not so for progressive judges.

Your ilk is on full display for all to see. Own it.

Posner is not a Progressive judge. Hell, I am not a progressive. Posner and Gorsuch are in agreement over many things. Gorsuch himself discusses the limitations on Originalism. Shapiro even acknowledges it. Hence the BS politicizing.

The guy has his own show, pod cast etc. if you can't figure out pandering to a specific crowd and financial motivation then you are one lost puppy.

I already countered Shapiro's point in my earlier post. You just aren't bright enough to catch it.

Sorry, enough time has past since your post that I've decided your words no longer mean what you originally intended them to mean.

I've decided you're now an originalist.

And that is just how fucked up your ideology is.

Ben knows it. I know it. Own it.

 

[Disir]

It is very difficult to take a man who reads Cosmopolitan seriously.

Secondly, when Posner says stare decisis is "stupid" he is a liberal but when Shapiro says stare decisis is "stupid" it's noteworthy.

Fuck Shapiro.

Yet your meddling judge advocates EXACTLY that which is spelled out in that Cosmo article.

Oh the irony.

It's your ilk that enact programs requiring forcible compliance. It's your ilk that changes law to favor one citizen over another. It's your ideology that is immoral. Own it.

Here's another leftist/progressive asshole having their head handed to them by Ben:

Um.........he isn't a meddling judge. Neither was Gorsuch. Fuck Shapiro. He bemoans the politicizing (ironically like Posner) unless it benefits him financially.

You know nothing about my ilk, nitwit.

I see you have nothing to counter Shapiro's points or back up your claim of his financial motivation. Yes, we get you're capable of logical fallacies. It's what leftists do.

No shit Gorsuch isn't a meddler. He applies the law as written. Not so for progressive judges.

Your ilk is on full display for all to see. Own it.

Posner is not a Progressive judge. Hell, I am not a progressive. Posner and Gorsuch are in agreement over many things. Gorsuch himself discusses the limitations on Originalism. Shapiro even acknowledges it. Hence the BS politicizing.

The guy has his own show, pod cast etc. if you can't figure out pandering to a specific crowd and financial motivation then you are one lost puppy.

I already countered Shapiro's point in my earlier post. You just aren't bright enough to catch it.

Sorry, enough time has past since your post that I've decided your words no longer mean what you originally intended them to mean.

I've decided you're now an originalist.

And that is just how fucked up your ideology is.

Ben knows it. I know it. Own it.

Really? I've decided you're an idiot. Own it.

You weren't capable of making an argument against my points and attempted to throw someone else in there to make the non argument for you. Own it.

 

[eflatminor]

Yet your meddling judge advocates EXACTLY that which is spelled out in that Cosmo article.

Oh the irony.

It's your ilk that enact programs requiring forcible compliance. It's your ilk that changes law to favor one citizen over another. It's your ideology that is immoral. Own it.

Here's another leftist/progressive asshole having their head handed to them by Ben:

Um.........he isn't a meddling judge. Neither was Gorsuch. Fuck Shapiro. He bemoans the politicizing (ironically like Posner) unless it benefits him financially.

You know nothing about my ilk, nitwit.

I see you have nothing to counter Shapiro's points or back up your claim of his financial motivation. Yes, we get you're capable of logical fallacies. It's what leftists do.

No shit Gorsuch isn't a meddler. He applies the law as written. Not so for progressive judges.

Your ilk is on full display for all to see. Own it.

Posner is not a Progressive judge. Hell, I am not a progressive. Posner and Gorsuch are in agreement over many things. Gorsuch himself discusses the limitations on Originalism. Shapiro even acknowledges it. Hence the BS politicizing.

The guy has his own show, pod cast etc. if you can't figure out pandering to a specific crowd and financial motivation then you are one lost puppy.

I already countered Shapiro's point in my earlier post. You just aren't bright enough to catch it.

Sorry, enough time has past since your post that I've decided your words no longer mean what you originally intended them to mean.

I've decided you're now an originalist.

And that is just how fucked up your ideology is.

Ben knows it. I know it. Own it.

Really? I've decided you're an idiot. Own it.

Oh, so the meaning of your words should not be changed?

Thanks for proving my point.

And for demonstrating yet again how leftists are incapable of debate without using logical fallacies.

 

[Disir]

Um.........he isn't a meddling judge. Neither was Gorsuch. Fuck Shapiro. He bemoans the politicizing (ironically like Posner) unless it benefits him financially.

You know nothing about my ilk, nitwit.

I see you have nothing to counter Shapiro's points or back up your claim of his financial motivation. Yes, we get you're capable of logical fallacies. It's what leftists do.

No shit Gorsuch isn't a meddler. He applies the law as written. Not so for progressive judges.

Your ilk is on full display for all to see. Own it.

Posner is not a Progressive judge. Hell, I am not a progressive. Posner and Gorsuch are in agreement over many things. Gorsuch himself discusses the limitations on Originalism. Shapiro even acknowledges it. Hence the BS politicizing.

The guy has his own show, pod cast etc. if you can't figure out pandering to a specific crowd and financial motivation then you are one lost puppy.

I already countered Shapiro's point in my earlier post. You just aren't bright enough to catch it.

Sorry, enough time has past since your post that I've decided your words no longer mean what you originally intended them to mean.

I've decided you're now an originalist.

And that is just how fucked up your ideology is.

Ben knows it. I know it. Own it.

Really? I've decided you're an idiot. Own it.

Oh, so the meaning of your words should not be changed?

Thanks for proving my point.

You don't have a point. That's the problem.

 

[eflatminor]

I see you have nothing to counter Shapiro's points or back up your claim of his financial motivation. Yes, we get you're capable of logical fallacies. It's what leftists do.

No shit Gorsuch isn't a meddler. He applies the law as written. Not so for progressive judges.

Your ilk is on full display for all to see. Own it.

Posner is not a Progressive judge. Hell, I am not a progressive. Posner and Gorsuch are in agreement over many things. Gorsuch himself discusses the limitations on Originalism. Shapiro even acknowledges it. Hence the BS politicizing.

The guy has his own show, pod cast etc. if you can't figure out pandering to a specific crowd and financial motivation then you are one lost puppy.

I already countered Shapiro's point in my earlier post. You just aren't bright enough to catch it.

Sorry, enough time has past since your post that I've decided your words no longer mean what you originally intended them to mean.

I've decided you're now an originalist.

And that is just how fucked up your ideology is.

Ben knows it. I know it. Own it.

Really? I've decided you're an idiot. Own it.

Oh, so the meaning of your words should not be changed?

Thanks for proving my point.

You don't have a point. That's the problem.

You go with that. I've already changed the meaning of your words.

 

[Disir]

Posner is not a Progressive judge. Hell, I am not a progressive. Posner and Gorsuch are in agreement over many things. Gorsuch himself discusses the limitations on Originalism. Shapiro even acknowledges it. Hence the BS politicizing.

The guy has his own show, pod cast etc. if you can't figure out pandering to a specific crowd and financial motivation then you are one lost puppy.

I already countered Shapiro's point in my earlier post. You just aren't bright enough to catch it.

Sorry, enough time has past since your post that I've decided your words no longer mean what you originally intended them to mean.

I've decided you're now an originalist.

And that is just how fucked up your ideology is.

Ben knows it. I know it. Own it.

Really? I've decided you're an idiot. Own it.

Oh, so the meaning of your words should not be changed?

Thanks for proving my point.

You don't have a point. That's the problem.

You go with that. I've already changed the meaning of your words.

You have done nothing but make yourself look like another uneducated hilljack.

 

[eflatminor]

Sorry, enough time has past since your post that I've decided your words no longer mean what you originally intended them to mean.

I've decided you're now an originalist.

And that is just how fucked up your ideology is.

Ben knows it. I know it. Own it.

Really? I've decided you're an idiot. Own it.

Oh, so the meaning of your words should not be changed?

Thanks for proving my point.

You don't have a point. That's the problem.

You go with that. I've already changed the meaning of your words.

You have done nothing but make yourself look like another uneducated hilljack.

Logical fallacy number...oh hell, I've lost count.