Souter To Retire

AUTiger1 · « **on:** May 01, 2009, 10:55:02 AM »

Good fucking riddance to George H.W. Bush's biggest mistake. Sadly, we'll probably get some leftist approved communist as a replacement, qualified or not.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193

Maybe we'll get lucky, and Obama's appointment will turn out to be as big a traitor to him, too. But I doubt it. The funny thing about Supreme Court appointees is that liberals don't seem to be controversial, and can freely admit to all manner of constitutional anathemas. Nevermind that they hate the very Constitution they swear to uphold, because for some reason only defenders of the Constitution are considered radical anymore.

wesfau2 · « **Reply #1 on:** May 01, 2009, 11:35:59 AM »

Quote from: AUTiger1 on May 01, 2009, 10:55:02 AM

Nevermind that they hate the very Constitution they swear to uphold

Do you really believe that?

AUTiger1 · « **Reply #2 on:** May 01, 2009, 12:11:03 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 11:35:59 AM

Do you really believe that?

Ok, hate maybe strong. For 4 of the Justices, yes I believe there are certain parts they truly dislike.

GarMan · « **Reply #3 on:** May 01, 2009, 12:14:49 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 11:35:59 AM

Do you really believe that?

Perhaps, it's not as much hate as it is contempt. Just a thought...

AUTiger1 · « **Reply #4 on:** May 01, 2009, 12:18:18 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on May 01, 2009, 12:14:49 PM

Perhaps, it's not as much hate as it is contempt. Just a thought...

Better choice of words. Thanks.

wesfau2 · « **Reply #5 on:** May 01, 2009, 12:27:34 PM »

Quote from: AUTiger1 on May 01, 2009, 12:11:03 PM

I believe there are certain parts they truly dislike.

For instance...?

AUTiger1 · « **Reply #6 on:** May 01, 2009, 12:40:15 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 12:27:34 PM

For instance...?

2nd Amendment. In the DC handgun case last year. It stood for 32 years. A ban on owning a handgun or an operable rifle or shotgun in your home was illegal. It was a 5-4 decision. Really? No way that shouldn't have been a 9-0 decision. One more liberal judge and it would still be against the law to own and posses a firearm in your home if you happen to live in DC. Apparently the 4 didn't think it important enough to be able to defend your home, unless you had a knife or hatchet of course.

wesfau2 · « **Reply #7 on:** May 01, 2009, 01:19:41 PM »

Quote from: AUTiger1 on May 01, 2009, 12:40:15 PM

2nd Amendment. In the DC handgun case last year. It stood for 32 years. A ban on owning a handgun or an operable rifle or shotgun in your home was illegal. It was a 5-4 decision. Really? No way that shouldn't have been a 9-0 decision. One more liberal judge and it would still be against the law to own and posses a firearm in your home if you happen to live in DC. Apparently the 4 didn't think it important enough to be able to defend your home, unless you had a knife or hatchet of course.

I think that you're mistaking the opinion that this portion of the amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

puts a very specific limitation on the right to keep and bear arms for a hatred (or contempt) of the Constitution itself.

If that phrase had no limiting effect, then why wasn't the 2nd Amendment just written to read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the meaning of the text of a document without one of those people being contemptuous of the document or its contents.

Saniflush · « **Reply #8 on:** May 01, 2009, 01:51:56 PM »

Ah yes.

The right to keep bear arms.

GarMan · « **Reply #9 on:** May 01, 2009, 04:23:06 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 01:19:41 PM

It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the meaning of the text of a document without one of those people being contemptuous of the document or its contents.

Absolutely, but I don't believe that Liberal Activist judges are "reasonable people".

wesfau2 · « **Reply #10 on:** May 01, 2009, 05:01:03 PM »

Quote from: GarMan on May 01, 2009, 04:23:06 PM

Absolutely, but I don't believe that Liberal Activist judges are "reasonable people".

I understand that is your opinion of them, but I simply took issue with the OP's assertion that any member of the SCOTUS would "hate" or hold in contempt the Constitution.

AUTiger1 · « **Reply #11 on:** May 01, 2009, 05:16:08 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 01:19:41 PM

I think that you're mistaking the opinion that this portion of the amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

puts a very specific limitation on the right to keep and bear arms for a hatred (or contempt) of the Constitution itself.

If that phrase had no limiting effect, then why wasn't the 2nd Amendment just written to read:

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?

Stevens stated at the time (paraphrase) that the ruling didn't tell us anything about the scope of the right to own or posses firearms, he went on the defended it as pertaining to militia gun use. He also seemed pretty pissed that it went the way it did. He also accused the majority of playing politics, which is a huge problem I have with the high court, but that is another discussion for another time. Breyer went on to say that even if the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right to own and posses firearms that the D.C. gun ban was still reasonable and constitutional. How can he believe that, if it guarantees that freedom, then it guarantees it and no one or any form of government can forbid it. To me, and maybe I am taking it the wrong way, with what they said it sounded like they were basically saying that the Constitution was nothing more than a piece of paper. So I may be mistaken, but that is just what I believe.

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 01:19:41 PM

It is possible for reasonable people to disagree on the meaning of the text of a document without one of those people being contemptuous of the document or its contents.

Agreed 100%, Church denominations are a perfect example, they argue the meaning of the Bible, but none have contempt for it.

AUTiger1 · « **Reply #12 on:** May 01, 2009, 05:17:02 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 05:01:03 PM

I understand that is your opinion of them, but I simply took issue with the OP's assertion that any member of the SCOTUS would "hate" or hold in contempt the Constitution.

If personal offense was taken, none was meant.

GarMan · « **Reply #13 on:** May 01, 2009, 05:24:46 PM »

Quote from: wesfau2 on May 01, 2009, 05:01:03 PM

I understand that is your opinion of them, but I simply took issue with the OP's assertion that any member of the SCOTUS would "hate" or hold in contempt the Constitution.

I believe "contempt" is a fair assessment. Extending Constitutional protections to the Gitmo detainees is a good example. If we permit the Constitution to be interpreted differently based on political alignment or agenda of the judge rather than interpretation of the intent of the original authors, I think we are discrediting and devaluing the document.