We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....

I also think they will approve his pick. 2021 may be more disturbed than 2020.

 

No he wasn't.

It's not the same to say you are... what you want people to believe you are. Quite another to actually be that. Scalia was an activist judge who legislated from the bench according to this political partisan views. The Heller decision is one clear example of it. Not the decision itself (I don't know if it was based on precedent or not) ... the way it was reasoned by him was a complete fabrication.

 

If anyone could read and understand the law they be attorneys or certainly would be hiring attorneys.

But we shouldn't be...Obama and Biden broke a long standing tradition by appointing an attorney to the bench...we should be appointing Judges...people that have actually set over cases.

Attorney and Judges do it better and your post highlights, because the Preamble of the Constitution is not part of the Constitution....https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

 

You are making a theoretical description that has no echo in reality.

What is there to understand in the law that nobody else can understand? It's people... human beings... who must comply with the law. Most human beings are not attorneys. So if you are going to expect people to comply with the law, people must know what is expected of them. The law cannot be some ... "secret code" that only attorneys understand. And I don't believe that it is. But if it is, that needs to change.

I already addressed the rest of your post on the OP, and I don't see you responding to any of what I said.

 

Then how in the world would you expect people to comply with the law if they are unable to read and understand it?

The preamble IS the constitution for the United States of America. It's where the United States of America is const The rest is a description of how that nation, which was constituted in the so-called "Preamble", should henceforth operate.

For example, a company (or any organization) is first constituted as a partnership, or corporation or... whatever it is. Stating it's purpose. And then the bylaws explain how this entity must operate. Same thing with the constitution. The so-called "Preamble" is what creates or "constitutes" the nation, stating its purpose. What follows are just the equivalent to a company's "bylaws". The purpose or constitution of a business is not a bylaw. But if any bylaw contradicts the stated purpose of the business it's not valid.

Why would it be any different with the Constitution?

Here, for example, is where people with business experience would be a benefit to the Supreme Court. They understand this better than any attorney.

I can list many many things about laws and the Constitution which people who are not attorneys can understand it better than an attorney. Historians, scientists, psychologists, economists, ... But we are not going to take advantage of that knowledge if we insist on putting attorneys only in SCOTUS.

This is also another reason why the number of justices should be increased. But in a non-partisan way, if possible.

 

1) I don't...that' why we have lawyers and Courts
2) because it's not part, it's a Preamble to do it...and introduction.....read the case law on it...and if you don't understand still hire a lawyer. ....people with Business experience are smart enough to hire lawyers to draft contracts

 

The fact that Scalia was an originalist/textualist and a conservative is well established. He is kind of the poster guy for it. If it is your contention he isn't, then by all means provide a source. I would be interested to read it.

Concerning Heller, if you haven't read the decision and dissent in full you should. Good stuff on both sides. I personally agree with the decision along with the reasons he gave, but obviously that is a point of contention. I don't see any fabrication as you put it.

 

So, you would like a conservative President to appoint a President to appoint a Justice that ignores precedence and previous ruling in setting aside Row v Wade. All in hope of getting a judge to set aside the Second Amendment. Most human beings do not understand why a SCOTUS makes a ruling that they do not agree with. Most people do not understand how an internal combustion engine works, but are you going to turn them loose on your transmission? Would you let your local dog catcher operate on you? How about your local Veterinarian? The Judicial System is no less complicated.

 

I should have known I was wasting my time. I'll save that to send to somebody who at least understands what they read.

Thanks for the effort, though

 

Well you are...because you apparently don't understand the law, which is fine...but the Preamble is not part of the Constitution...here is yet a second link if you didnn't like Cornell Law, this is from the US Court directly

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-fede...ut-educational-outreach/activity-resources/us

"The preamble sets the stage for the Constitution (Archives.gov). It clearly communicates the intentions of the framers and the purpose of the document. The preamble is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It does not define government powers or individual rights"

Your OP highlights a great deal why it's important to have people on the bench with backgrounds in the law.

 

I have proven that he's not.

Not only have I read it in full. I have debated it many times on this forum. At least twice with attorneys. One of them said they had taught Constitutional Law. I'm not saying I know more than them about laws. I don't. But what I debunked were the arguments Scalia used.

Scalia's decision was based, in no small part (in fact, the majority of the text), on a linguistical pseudoscience that he made up so he could pass this legislation. You can look up the term "Scalia" in my posts (using the Search function above) if you're interested. There is no doubt that Scalia was a great legal mind and scholar. But he was not an originalist or textualist. And this decision proves it. If he were, he would have taken into account the observations made by real linguists. He did not. He made up his own "pseudo-linguistics"

 

What does Rowe v Wade have to do with anything I wrote?

But a combustion engine "knows" how to act correctly. Your assumption is that people can't know how to act correctly. So how can they be required to do so?

I ask again: what is there that attorneys know, that other people can't learn by simply reading about it? Other than what I already mentioned on the OP.

 

Believing that the law should be applied consistently according to the intention of the law is called originalism. I'm pretty sure that's not what you believe, since that's THE major divide between "liberal" and "conservative" court philosophies.

 

that's not really what I said.

 

Ok, my apologies.

 

Below is an entire article published in law review about Scalia's originalism. One of many. Honestly I have never seen him described any other way. You have provided no evidence other than your opinion or what appears to be some wild theory you've bought in to. So really without a link to back your claims I guess we are done here.

"Justice Scalia was the leading judicial theorist and advocate of originalism of his era,1 and his legacy has widely been assessed in those terms.2"
http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NDL503-Ramsey.pdf

 

James Madison wrote the Constitution. He was neither a lawyer, liberal or social justice warrior.

 

I'm not saying that the laws should be interpreted the way the original author interpreted them. I'm saying they should be interpreted the way the Constitution intended them to be interpreted. And the latter is outlined in the Preamble.

There is a subtle but very significant difference. When the Constitution was written, the intention of the authors and the intention stated in the Constitution (the Preamble) were one and the same. But as circumstance change, so should the interpretation of the Constitution must change.

Every article that was in the original Constitution (including the Bill of Rights) probably responded to the original intention. Because they responded to the circumstances back then.

For example, not granting women the right to vote in the 18th Century, maybe contributed to "insure domestic tranquility" and "secure the blessings of liberty"... But circumstances changed, and later it didn't.

Of course, correcting this required a constitutional amendment. But that's because this was an extreme example (at the time). There are more circumstances that have changed that can be solved by interpreting the constitution differently from the way the authors did at the moment, but still according to the intention of the Constitution itself as set forth on the Preamble.

If SCOTUS had done this at the time of the 19th A, we wouldn't even have needed a 19th to give women the right to vote.

 

Read my sig!

Implicit in my sig is that I don't debate with authors of articles who aren't here. If you have a point to make, you make it.

My opinion is based on the Heller decision, which he wrote. The fact that he was not an origanist in what was probably the most consequential court decision that he ever authored, proves that he was not an originalist. He might have been in other less consequential decisions, but not when it counted.

 

Good luck with that.

 

I guess I'm not really following your distinction, since the example you used was corrected in the constitutionally correct way; a constitutional amendment.

However if you are arguing that the Supreme Court really wouldn't need a constitutional amendment to force all states to allow women to vote without such an amendment, then I disagree. Several states already allowed that and if there were no 19th amendment, eventually all the states would have done that anyway, but if you think the Supreme Court could have imposed that because of "modern times" or whatever, then it turns out we don't agree at all about the constitutional role of the court or the interpretation of the law or constitution.

 

It doesn't matter how it was changed. What matters is that it was changed. Does the fact that it changed mean that the framers were wrong when they didn't grant the right to vote to women?

Do you think that the framers, by not granting women and black people the right to vote, were acting against the objectives set in the Preamble?

 

It was the framers that left us an avenue to change laws as needs change but that method was not the SCOTUS.

 

If women suffrage had come up today, a constitutional amendment would not have been necessary. There is no law in the Constitution that prevents a woman from voting. It's a matter of interpretation. And that's what SCOTUS does. But my point is that the interpretation... ANY interpretation... that SCOTUS does should be done based on, not how the framers interpreted it at the time (because that would be obsolete... .conditions have changed) but by using the Preamble as a guide.

 

Actually it DOES matter how it was changed. Saying it doesn't matter is pretty much saying if it feels good do it. No law, constitution, or custom will bind you when you want something.

I think you've managed to encapsulate one of the major differences between left and right. Ordered liberty requires fair rules; laws, that are applied equally, not simply based on your evolving feelings that can change at any moment.

Usually extending these conversations is waste of time but I have to say this was illuminating. I was almost agreeing with your original statements, but further discussion and examination lead to how stark the differences we have towards how a society should be organized.