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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Golem, Sep 20, 2020.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't know what you're talking about. Obviously when I say "it doesn't matter" I mean that it's irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make.

    The rest of your post has nothing to do with my response. And you didn't respond to the question. If you had, regardless of how you responded, it would have helped illustrate what I was talking about.

    Oh well....
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
  2. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,661
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I didn't answer your question because your question betrayed a deep misunderstanding of the constitution and federalism, and seemed largely irrelevant to anything I was saying. The STATES determined voting eligibility. It wasn't a national requirement. Several states allowed blacks to vote from the beginning of the country.

    You just don't understand the difference between the federal government and it's relationship to the states. It's difficult to make hash of your questions when the basis of them is based on your fractured understanding of our government.
     
    Ddyad, struth and altmiddle like this.
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Absolutely irrelevant. This thread is about appointing justices to SCOTUS. Voting rights was an example. I could have used a different one, but I don't think changing it would make any difference, since you decided to avoid an innocuous question with a strawman.

    In a purely hypothetical scenario in which the 19th A had not passed (it passed by one vote, BTW), and it had been brought up today before SCOTUS (or at any point this century or late 20th), women suffrage would not have even needed a Constitutional Amendment. The meaning of "Justice", in respect to woman suffrage, at the time of the framers, in the early 20th century and today are three different concepts. This means that the Constitution should not be interpreted like the framers would have interpreted it, but according to the intention as outlined in the Preamble.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  4. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    As I already stated, that was a bad example, but if you want to use it, let's imagine a case where a state still doesn't allow women to vote in national elections, like New Jersey, and a woman files suit that she has a right under the US constitution to be able to vote. The case winds it's way to the courts and eventually gets to the Supreme Court.

    If I understand you correctly, even absent a 19th Amendment, there is is some right in the constitution granting women the right to vote, so you think the court would affirm her right to vote. My thinking is that there isn't anything in the constitution granting her that.

    Does that break it down?
     
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm afraid not....

    It's irrelevant if there is a "right" in the constitution or not. A Supreme Court will rule that women have a right to vote. Because the precept that all people are created equal is one of Justice. There is no doubt that they would rule that way today. Regardless of what is or is not in the Constitution. It would be insulting to require a constitutional amendment today.

    Our founders did not believe that women were as intelligent as men. So they did not feel it was a matter of justice. But today we know that they are. So the concept of "justice" has changed.

    So, one last time: Justice is one of the fundamental principles for which we constituted a nation. But the concept of "justice" has changed. So it's not as simple as saying that Supreme Court Justices should interpret the Constitution the same way our founders would have interpreted it. What they need to do is apply the same principles, which are outlined in the so-called "Preamble" understanding that these are not the same as they were in the 18th Century.

    Anyway... I'm just repeating myself. You just need to stop focusing on the example and think about the concept that I'm trying to convey. It's not that complicated. Everybody I've explained it to has understood it. They might not completely agree (though most do), but they understand what I'm saying.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  6. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,661
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I know the concept you are trying to convey; the "living" constitution. You just went way around to get to that point.
     
  7. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no idea what that means.
     
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,661
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OK...that's a fairly common liberal view of constitutional interpretation. Surprising that you don't know the term since you seem to have those views of constitutional interpretation.
     
  9. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I call my view "golemism" :D

    Not really... but I like the sound of it....

    I couldn't care less how you call it. The important thing is that nobody on this thread has rebutted it.

    As a matter of fact, I tend to be anti-tags. Tags are too often used by people to hide from discussing content.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2020
  10. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,661
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well to me, there is nothing to rebut. You may call it "golemism," but I call it the "if it feels good do it" theory of judicial activism. Your view is simply not consistent with enumerated powers and the constitution and law as written, it's more about finding what you want in the "penumbras and emanations" radiating out from the document. If you want something, you simply put what you want in the court decision and voila! It's constitutional!

    It's also a fraud.

    So your view is the standard operating procedure of leftism activism in the courts. You can call it "golemism" but you didn't make it up.
     
  11. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    My position is more consistent with the constitution as written than many of the decisions by the so-called "originalists" in SCOTUS in the past couple of decades.

    But you seem more intent in discussing what it's "called" than with the content of what I wrote. I'm not really interested in that, so I'll pass....
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
  12. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I actually misstated my point. You are hoping that to get a justice that will keep Row V Wade intact while setting aside the Second Amendment. It applies, because it states your obvious motive in your OP.


    An internal combustion engine does not know anything. There is an onboard computer that can supposedly tell you what is wrong, but it really does not know. If you do not believe me, take your car to a mechanic, and tell him/her to only fix what the computer says in wrong. I guarantee the repair bill will be outlandish. I took an older Cadillac to a garage because it would start sometimes, and not others. I would often shut down while driving. The code came up distributor. The dealer replaced the entire distributor, and called to say that I could pick it up. I took a cab there, and they were still working on the car when I arrived. Turns out that it would not start. I ended up losing a day of work, and had to walk 20 miles home. They kept the car for another week. Each day they would call claiming asking for permission to change out a different part. After a week, I told them prepare the car to be towed to a different garage. I actually had to pay the bill before they would release the car. The bill was more then a thousand dollars. I paid it. The car was towed to a different garage, and they determined that the only thing wrong was a short in the cable going to the starter. More then a thousand dollars to replace a positive battery cable. I took the first mechanic to court. He had an attorney, and I represented myself. I won. The first garage hand to refund me 100% of his bill, pay the towing charge of the second mechanic, the cab fee, and reimburse me for the loss of a days pay.

    That was the second, of three, times that I represented myself in court while the opponent had a lawyer. I won all three. You might think that supports your OP, but it really doesn't. I might be able to read and understand the law, but the average person can't. The proof is happening all around us today. The protests of the Breonna Taylor shooting. The average person can not understand the nuances of the law. These protesters are mad because two officers were not charged in the death, and the one charged, was not charged for shooting unaimed rounds. Those rounds went into another occupied apartment. Granted that too many of the protesters fall for the false narrative that is being put out, and maybe the SCOTUS Justice would not fall for the narrative. But then again, maybe they would. The real issue here is the nuances between what makes a situation a crime, and what doesn't. The protesters want the courts to find every officer involved guilty of a charge of murder. That is what they pushed for in the George Zimmerman trial. They failed to get a conviction because a charge of murder clearly did not apply. If the attorney had allowed for the lesser included charges of manslaughter, then there might have been a conviction, but the prosecution did not attempt to include the lesser charges until after they presented their case. The Judge justifiable did not allow it. Now, Zimmerman is walking free. But do you hear anyone that thought Zimmerman was guilty complain that the prosecution did not include the lesser included charges before presenting their case? Or that the Judge did not allow the different charges after the case had been presented? Frankly, I haven't. They are all angry that Zimmerman was not convicted of murder. They want to defund the police because they can not understand the law.

    The biggest problem with your OP is that a Justice with a financial background will not be allowed to hear or issue an opinion is purely financial cases. That is why the Prosecutions use financial experts to present their cases to a jury, and that information is already provided in court records. The Justices make their decision based on the same information that the Juries were presented. If one of the parties disagrees with an expert offered within a case, they can offer Amicus Briefs based on testimony from other experts. Therefore, the necessity of having an expert in finance sitting on the bench has already been mitigated.

    Now, let's get back to the types of Justices there are. Remember, I said that Justices are a variation of two types. One that follows the letter of the law, and others that rely of Judicial Activism. You claim that had no basis in reality. Your opinion is wrong. A Justice that relies on the letter of the law, I used Scalia as an example, takes into account what the framers of the US Constitution intended. They use documents from the Founding Fathers themselves to determine what was intended from specific statutes. One document used a lot is called the Federalist Papers which was written by three of the writers of the US Constitution. Others are articles and essays by others are used. But the point is that they view the Constitution from the intent of the very people that wrote the Constitution. They also use presidents and earlier opinions in making their decisions. The other type, Judicial Activists, believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document that can be adjusted in accordance to changes in the country. They are not wrong, but they ignore the intent of the framers. That is that changes come from Amendments that are ratified by the states. Instead, they make their decision based on what they think is just, and not based on the laws or the Constitution itself. I used Sotomayor as an example. If you look at the ruling that comes from the SCOTUS you will see that I am right. The fact that you do not understand this, explains why I would not want you, as a legal layman, sitting on the bench. I, myself, would never accept such a position. Because neither of us are qualified.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  13. altmiddle

    altmiddle Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2017
    Messages:
    1,483
    Likes Received:
    961
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Excellent post.

    Unfortunately though, you are wasting your time as I did. This will simply end in a dance around points of well established fact and the redefining of the simplest and most basic terminology. The goal being to convince you that ideological activism is what the founders intended and that is what it means to be a true "originalists".
     
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong!

    And, I ask again, what does Roe v Wade (or the 2nd A, for that matter) have to do with anything I wrote?

    So why are you comparing it to people?

    My point exactly. And the reason, as I said, is that there are no "average persons" in SCOTUS. If there were, attorneys and judges would be forced to apply the law based on reality, and not just this "secret code" that they have been using. And by this I mean that they will need to start looking at the purpose of the Constitution. Which is stated in the preamble.

    BTW, the Zimmerman case was decided the way it was because in Florida it's legal for a white person to kill a black man. They just need to say that they felt "threatened". But that's a different story. A better example would have been the Casey Anthony case, which was very poorly prosecuted. However, this is just a side note. Let's not waste time discussing Zimmerman or Casey Anthony. There are other threads where we already did that.

    Why? That would be like demanding that a Justice who is an attorney not be allowed to hear or issue opinions in a purely "legal" case.

    Didn't work in the Heller case.

    But that's nonsense. First of all, the purpose of having a financial expert is not so they can issue opinions on finance issues. Whether the case deals with finances, or how a law was applied, or ... linguistics (based on which the Heller case was decided)... is purely incidental. Lay people are necessary so they can offer the lay person's opinion.

    Anybody can use the documents from the Founding Fathers to justify a pre-established opinion. They can do like Scalia did, which was to redefine the words in them and then claim they are an "originalist" because he quoted the documents

    And this is exactly my point. Dishonest justices who claim to be originalists, don't actually have to be originalists. They can just claim it, and most people will believe them. But anybody... even if they are not an attorney, anybody with an average education can easily tell if they issued an opinion based on the precepts set forth in the Preamble or not. And this is why attorneys refuse to do this. They want to keep their "secret code" that they claim only they understand.

    My area is computers. I've been doing this since the early 80s. In the early days of computers, people in IT were viewed as "sages" who understood and spoke this "secret code" called "binary language". So only computer experts could use this "magical object" called a computer. Some of my unethical colleagues used this to their advantage. They would ask for budget to buy something like a... "byte container"... .where they could keep the "bytes" from spilling out on the floor. And the people in charge of budget would eat it all up. They were not among the "initiated".

    This is exactly what happens in today's judicial system. Attorneys don't want to give up this "legal secret cabal" to which they belong. So they make up terms like "originalists" or "judicial activists" which are absolutely meaningless. All justices legislate from the bench. Roe v Wade was as much a piece of legislation passed by SCOTUS as Heller was. So was Citizens United. So was the defense of Obamacare's "individual mandate" based on this "tax" nonsense.

    There is no Originalists vs Activists dichotomy in real life. It's just made up to fool the gullible. What we need is a parameter by which all of us can judge the judges. And the perfect parameter is the Preamble. It was written by our forefathers. Any moderately intelligent educated person can understand it. And it can never change, because it's not, in and of itself, legislation. You can't even change it with an Amendment. You would need a completely new constitution if you wanted to change it.

    But the only way to start this is by stopping this senseless practice of appointing only attorneys to the Supreme Court.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
  15. rkhames

    rkhames Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2013
    Messages:
    5,227
    Likes Received:
    1,285
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All you have done, is stated that you want Judicial Activists for judges.

    You defeated your entire narrative in your claim that the Preamble of the US Constitution can be understood by anyone with moderate mentality. Yet, people have been debating the meaning every since it was written. The fact is that there are two versions of the Preamble. There is the common used version:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    and the version on file at the National Archives:

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    Subtle difference, but enough to create diversion on what was intended by the Founding Fathers. Beyond that, how do you define what a "perfect Union" is? Define Domestic Tranquility? Why is defense in "common defense" lower case? What is good for the "general Welfare? What are the Blessing of Liberty for ourselves , and who determines what is considered "Posterity" for the nation? It seems to me that a people with moderate intelligence could debate the meanings. If there is not a general condenses of what was meant among the moderate intelligent people, then you Presidents will end up doing exactly what they are doing now. Choosing Justices based on whether they agreed with them. The only difference is that we will have justices that review laws that do not understand the law. It really would not work.

    It is easy too easy to misunderstand things in an area that you are educated in. Take a look at your misunderstanding of what I posted about an internal combustion engine. You have been claiming that anyone with moderate intelligence could understand the law. Basically, you are saying that all knowledge is relative. My point is that knowledge is not relative. I pointed out that most people do not understand an internal combustion engine, and then asked if you want to turn the average person loose on fixing yours. My comparison is clearly on the knowledge it takes to fix an engine to the knowledge to review our Judicial System. I was not comparing people to engines.
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  16. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No! I have said that all judges are activists. The fact that they deny it doesn't make it any different. And the case YOU brought up as the "gold standard", Scalia, is clear evidence.

    No! You are confusing "meaning" as in "what is the meaning of the words", with "meaning" as in "how to apply it to real life cases". Any moderately educated American understands what it means. Not so much how to apply it. But any moderately educated American will recognize when it's NOT being applied.

    It's not "perfect union" It's a "more perfect union". Which simply means "get better". Who disputes that? Show it!

    Oh God... You want to discuss the spelling?

    Let's not be ridiculous. You don't have to define "tranquility" to know if something inspires tranquility or not.

    This is not about definitions. You can define it any way you want. Anybody can define it any way they like. That doesn't matter. But if, for example (just an example, don't take it literally), North Carolina (or any state) decided to bring up the case to the Supreme Court that they want to secede the union. Does allowing secession promote "a more perfect union"? Does it work in favor or against domestic tranquility? Does it produce in you tranquility, or does it produce aprehension?

    People might or might not agree on the answer. But everybody will know what the questions are. And every American of average intelligence and education will be able to understand why the Supreme court came to their ruling. Regardless of whether or not they agree or disagree with it, they will understand it. They won't have to study case law, or precedent or... any of the "secret code" that attorneys have made up.

    It will be an objective ruling. Meaning that everybody uses the same parameters. Not a subjective one, as it it now. Which would mean that it depends on the "feelings" or "preferences" of each individual judge.

    It could not be clearer.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2020
  17. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,661
    Trophy Points:
    113

    OK, which decisions from originalists do you claim are not consistent with the Constitution?
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  18. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Heller
     
  19. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Second Amendment say we have a right to bear arms...dems said we didn't....a lawsuit was filed, and the orginalist on the SCOTUS said...of course you do because the 2nd Amendment says you do.

    That's pretty straight forward
     
    ButterBalls, Ddyad and altmiddle like this.
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,509
    Likes Received:
    18,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No dispute that we have a "right to bear arms" according to the 2nd A. A right that BTW, Trump has denied transgender people (or attempted... I don't know where that issue is right now).

    But that's not the problem, and it's off-topic.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
  21. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nope that was what Heller was all about.

    It's nowhere, because he never tried to ban guns to them
     
    ButterBalls and Ddyad like this.
  22. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,401
    Likes Received:
    26,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Barrett was a paid speaker five times, starting in 2011, at the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a summer program established to inspire a “distinctly Christian worldview in every area of law,” tax filings show. It was founded to show students “how God can use them as judges, law professors and practicing attorneys to help keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel in America.”
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e41892-fdc5-11ea-b555-4d71a9254f4b_story.html

    Of course, if she is asked about this during her confirmation testimony she will lie.
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2020
  23. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,661
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Err...I guess I'm not understanding what your argument is. In what way did the Heller decision result in contradicting the Constitution?
     
    ButterBalls likes this.
  24. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,401
    Likes Received:
    26,530
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Which ones?
     
  25. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    PA, NY and NJ all had voting rights for free black me prior to the civil war
     
    ButterBalls and Lil Mike like this.

Share This Page