Why do the God-haters persist?

[thanatos144]

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

They didn't hate Christians like you do.

It's probably best for you not to try to actually engage in the conversation, like you have chosen not to here.
You are outgunned

Maybe you should engage your brain and stop derailing the thread because you cant win the debate.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.

In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.

Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.

If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
They virtually never are.
When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
PoliSci 101.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's probably best for you not to try to actually engage in the conversation, like you have chosen not to here.
You are outgunned

You have a tendency to underestimate your opponents and overestimate yourself.

BTW having more guns doesn't mean you are right. Napoleon had alot of guns, so have countless other people on the wrong side of history.

 

[Avatar4321]

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.

In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.

Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.

If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
They virtually never are.
When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
PoliSci 101.

And if the justices were acting honestly according to the law and less politically, you would see many more 9-0 decisions. The fact that men have ulterior motives and aren't always honestly understanding the law doesn't mean the law isn't clear.

 

[Boss]

God is a big tease. Who can say. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, diseases, pointless wars over the centuries. for what? God already knows how this will end...Or maybe not. Are we waiting for Godot? For Nothing? Please.

Mary, it has been my observation there are two kinds of people. Those who can realize there is something going on here beyond our existence, something more profound and important. That there is a purpose to the universe and the amazingly beautiful and extraordinary thing we call life. That there is a reason we are compelled to goodness over evil, light over darkness, knowledge over ignorance, and purpose over insignificance. Then there are those who don't have the capacity to realize this.

I can't give you an answer as to why God has placed our spirits and souls in this devastating and harsh physical material univesrse. Perhaps our souls failed the test to ascend to a higher dimension and this is where we ended up as punishment? Perhaps our souls are placed here to test us or train us for a further journey after our mortal life is over? But I do believe we all have something inside us that is beyond our physical self. I believe it is something that will continue to exist after we die. Where it goes or what becomes of it next, I do not know, but it seems we are compelled toward a certain direction and course. Some people realize this and some people don't.

 

[Avatar4321]

God is a big tease. Who can say. Hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, diseases, pointless wars over the centuries. for what? God already knows how this will end...Or maybe not. Are we waiting for Godot? For Nothing? Please.

So go through this so we can learn.

If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;

If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can’t you stay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb;

And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he? (D&C 122:5-8)

Some lessons are difficult to learn. The key is to keep trying, to do good, to seek justice, to love mercy.

 

[Boss]

Total hogwash, but with citations!
In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.
The court interprets the intent as applied to issues the founders could never have imagined.
We all hate a percentage of their decisions and feel they have jumped the shark.
The difference is you think YOU have somehow channeled the Founder's intent.
The Founders themselves didn't have a single intent.

The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.

In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.

Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.

If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
They virtually never are.
When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
PoliSci 101.

I think the SCOTUS was originally comprised of 5 justices. Reason being, it wasn't supposed to be an "interpretive" position. Justices merely looked at the specifics of a case and ruled on the basis of what the Constitution said, and if ANY interpretation was needed, this was found in the writings of the Federalist Papers, where the specified arguments were originally presented by the Founding Fathers. As I said before, the idea behind having a SCOTUS was to rule in specific cases where Constitutional rights conflicted with each other. The Founding Fathers realized there would be such cases, and some judicial body would be needed to sort things out.

So the SCOTUS are supposed to be like referees in a football game... can you imagine if referees started "interpreting" the rules as the games were played, changing fundamentally how the game is played? *whistle* The referees have ruled that Team A shall not be awarded the field goal because they are already leading by 10 or more points! *whistle* The refs have determined that what once was typical "blocking" by the offensive line is now "holding" and will no longer be permitted. How long would it take to see the referees completely fuck up the game?

 

[thebrucebeat]

The Founder's intent is outlined in the Federalist Papers. The SCOTUS is not supposed to be "interpreting" anything, they are supposed to be ruling on the letter of the law. When you grant them the latitude to "interpret" things, you give them the ability to interject their will and not the intent of the Founders or the will of The People. Both Hamilton and Jefferson agreed on this, which is extremely rare, they didn't agree on much.

In ALL cases there IS a specific legal case brought to the court.

Yep, this is what I am pointing out in support of my argument. A specific case involves specific parties with a specific problem. The SCOTUS ruling should apply to that specific case and no other, unless the parameters are identical. However, we have allowed them for so many years, to literally change the Constitution for all with their rulings. That was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. We have a legitimate mechanism to change the Constitution.

If the interpretive skills of the justices were unnecessary every decision would be 9-0.
They virtually never are.
When the ruling is made it sets a precedent that is then used to support the arguments in similar cases.
PoliSci 101.

I think the SCOTUS was originally comprised of 5 justices. Reason being, it wasn't supposed to be an "interpretive" position. Justices merely looked at the specifics of a case and ruled on the basis of what the Constitution said, and if ANY interpretation was needed, this was found in the writings of the Federalist Papers, where the specified arguments were originally presented by the Founding Fathers. As I said before, the idea behind having a SCOTUS was to rule in specific cases where Constitutional rights conflicted with each other. The Founding Fathers realized there would be such cases, and some judicial body would be needed to sort things out.

So the SCOTUS are supposed to be like referees in a football game... can you imagine if referees started "interpreting" the rules as the games were played, changing fundamentally how the game is played? *whistle* The referees have ruled that Team A shall not be awarded the field goal because they are already leading by 10 or more points! *whistle* The refs have determined that what once was typical "blocking" by the offensive line is now "holding" and will no longer be permitted. How long would it take to see the referees completely fuck up the game?

It was 5 judges.
So you think it was always 5-0?
In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.
If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.

 

[Boss]

It was 5 judges.
So you think it was always 5-0?

Nope, as Jefferson said, our justices are as honest as any man, not more honest. They realized there might be an inclination of justices to rule based on will rather than law, but they felt this would be remedied by having five instead of one.

In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.

Is that because the rule on what is pass interference is ambiguous and open to interpretation, or is it that the ref has to make split second decisions based on what he sees happening? What if the ref had the authority to determine for himself what "pass interference" was? Perhaps the cornerback swatting down the ball in an otherwise perfect defensive maneuver could be "interpreted" into pass interference?

If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.

As I stated above, the FF knew that one justice would be much more inclined to pervert the constitution and impose his will instead of the constitution. Five justices were a sort of 'check and balance' in practice.

And let me be clear, I am not stating the COTUS requires absolutely NO interpretation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a SCOTUS at all, we'd all just carry around Constitutions in our pockets and whenever a dispute arose, whip out our copy and show the other party what it said. So there is a limited degree of "interpretation" involved by implication of the SCOTUS itself. The interpretation is supposed to be very limited and confined to the letter of the Constitution and founding intent as written. More importantly, the decisions and rulings are supposed to be case specific, not universal wholesale changes forevermore.

 

[Montrovant]

It was 5 judges.
So you think it was always 5-0?

Nope, as Jefferson said, our justices are as honest as any man, not more honest. They realized there might be an inclination of justices to rule based on will rather than law, but they felt this would be remedied by having five instead of one.

In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.

Is that because the rule on what is pass interference is ambiguous and open to interpretation, or is it that the ref has to make split second decisions based on what he sees happening? What if the ref had the authority to determine for himself what "pass interference" was? Perhaps the cornerback swatting down the ball in an otherwise perfect defensive maneuver could be "interpreted" into pass interference?

If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.

As I stated above, the FF knew that one justice would be much more inclined to pervert the constitution and impose his will instead of the constitution. Five justices were a sort of 'check and balance' in practice.

And let me be clear, I am not stating the COTUS requires absolutely NO interpretation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a SCOTUS at all, we'd all just carry around Constitutions in our pockets and whenever a dispute arose, whip out our copy and show the other party what it said. So there is a limited degree of "interpretation" involved by implication of the SCOTUS itself. The interpretation is supposed to be very limited and confined to the letter of the Constitution and founding intent as written. More importantly, the decisions and rulings are supposed to be case specific, not universal wholesale changes forevermore.

I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?

 

[thebrucebeat]

It was 5 judges.
So you think it was always 5-0?

Nope, as Jefferson said, our justices are as honest as any man, not more honest. They realized there might be an inclination of justices to rule based on will rather than law, but they felt this would be remedied by having five instead of one.

In football, pass interference calls are ALWAYS controversial.

Is that because the rule on what is pass interference is ambiguous and open to interpretation, or is it that the ref has to make split second decisions based on what he sees happening? What if the ref had the authority to determine for himself what "pass interference" was? Perhaps the cornerback swatting down the ball in an otherwise perfect defensive maneuver could be "interpreted" into pass interference?

If the SCOTUS rulings were to be so obvious, why not just one justice?
Because to apply the COTUS requires interpretation.

As I stated above, the FF knew that one justice would be much more inclined to pervert the constitution and impose his will instead of the constitution. Five justices were a sort of 'check and balance' in practice.

And let me be clear, I am not stating the COTUS requires absolutely NO interpretation. If that were the case, there wouldn't be a need for a SCOTUS at all, we'd all just carry around Constitutions in our pockets and whenever a dispute arose, whip out our copy and show the other party what it said. So there is a limited degree of "interpretation" involved by implication of the SCOTUS itself. The interpretation is supposed to be very limited and confined to the letter of the Constitution and founding intent as written. More importantly, the decisions and rulings are supposed to be case specific, not universal wholesale changes forevermore.

So, multiple justices because the interpretation will vary and the final decision is simply consensus.
Agreed.
You acknowledge there is interpretation.
You simply object when it isn't yours.

 

[Boss]

You acknowledge there is interpretation.
You simply object when it isn't yours.

Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.

 

[Hollie]

You acknowledge there is interpretation.
You simply object when it isn't yours.

Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.

What is the interpretation of unintended meaning? The interpretative aspect is itself subject to interpretation thus rendering subjective interpretation to be interpretative.

And there you have it - Boss'isms defined.

Boss'isms..... Bush'isms.... there's a pattern here.

 

[Boss]

I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?

No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.

 

[Boss]

You acknowledge there is interpretation.
You simply object when it isn't yours.

Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.

What is the interpretation of unintended meaning? The interpretative aspect is itself subject to interpretation thus rendering subjective interpretation to be interpretative.

And there you have it - Boss'isms defined.

Boss'isms..... Bush'isms.... there's a pattern here.

Babbling idiot!

 

[thebrucebeat]

You acknowledge there is interpretation.
You simply object when it isn't yours.

Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.

No.
Your argument is that the justices have no concept of context.
They do.
It just isn't yours.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?

No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.

You are simply defining what precedent is.
It is the process of interpreting how the Amendment would be used going forward in similar circumstances.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Not so. I object that interpretation has been taken to mean interpreting unintended meaning unto the Constitution. The interpretive aspect is only in the consideration of what is written in the Constitution and supporting documentation, like the Federalist Papers. "Interpret" like most every word in the dictionary, has multiple meanings in context. As usual, you have no concept of context.

What is the interpretation of unintended meaning? The interpretative aspect is itself subject to interpretation thus rendering subjective interpretation to be interpretative.

And there you have it - Boss'isms defined.

Boss'isms..... Bush'isms.... there's a pattern here.

Babbling idiot!

Fascinating, insightful response.
Rises to your best.

 

[thanatos144]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

 

[thebrucebeat]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

How did this post help?