Trumpling the Truth

[bennyonesix]

I'll read the CIA Post articles later. But...

Jennifer Rubin? Hahahah the most anti Trump psycho neocon of them all! Bill Kristol would have been better. That skeletal bitch is nuts.

And oh how the shitlib attacks when their lily white religiously homogenous model state is critiqued!

[nafod]

The new NSA, HR McMaster, has his shit together. Hope he smothers Steve Bannon with a pillow.

[johno]

I like his first Supreme Court nominee

In what way is Gorsuch any better than Merrick Garland?

Gorsuch is an originalist. As such, he is less likely to legislate from the bench.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism

[bennyonesix]

I see no reason to think this gorsuch is anything other than a souter or kennedy. A weak man who will bend to the yentas and shitlibs for headpats.

[JimZipCode]

Gorsuch is an originalist. As such, he is less likely to legislate from the bench.

Bullshit. So-called "originalism" (Richard Posner prefers the term "legalism") is just as much a vehicle for the judge's personal prejudices as any other legal theory. Possibly more full of hypocrisy: Scalia legislated from the bunch as much as anybody else did, but arguably he lied about it more.

Ok, at least I understand your theory.

[bennyonesix]

Nonsense on stilts. Scalia and Rhenquist and Alito and Thomas routinely uphold/upheld lower court decisions they disagree with on a policy level.

For example, Scalia's 10th Amendment cases as to jurisdiction of federal courts over cases with state law claims.

[nafod]

Mr. Carlson argued on Monday that although “the president ought to be precise in what he says, there should be no confusion about what he means.”

Heh

[bennyonesix]

They are rioting in Rinkeby right now.

[tonkadtx]

http://www.friatider.se/riots-and-looti ... olm-suburb

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/Lz5 ... -i-rinkeby

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reg_sJ-La7c[/youtube]

[bennyonesix]

Umm that's NOT A TERRORIST ATTACK LIKE TRUMP DIDN'T SAY HAPPENED BIGOT.

[JimZipCode]

Nonsense on stilts. Scalia and Rhenquist and Alito and Thomas routinely uphold/upheld lower court decisions they disagree with on a policy level.

Not any more routinely than they let their personal policy preferences dictate their opinions.

Listen, I get that it's sacrilegious to speak ill of Saint Antonin. And I'm not suggesting he's as much of a nutjob as Thomas. We don't need to get into it.

[bennyonesix]

I disagree with that fundamentally and absolutely. Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist (and perhaps Roberts we will see if Obamacare was a Principled decision or not with this 9th abomination) were explicit that the Constitution does not enshrine their own policy preferences and ruled in ways that backed that up. The neolibs and shitlibs on the court today make no such claim. In their eyes, the Constitution forces an eternal movement to the left in social matters which is merely their personal policy preference. And on economic matters they default to the corporations and money lenders because they are lazy, dumb and greedy and so this too enshrines their interest.

Now if you want, you can argue other justices in the past have advocated for their own policy preferences and that some were even "rightist", but you can't argue Rhenquist and Scalia et al did that.

Unless of course you assert the tautology that arguing for the existence of outcome neutral rules is itself a value judgment.

The appropriate attack on those men was/is that their judicial ideology is unwise, not that they are enshrining their own policy preferences (unless of course as i said you embrace tautology).

You should be honest and just tell the truth: you don't want to live under the Constitution. You want policy implemented which is irreconcilable with the US Constitution. And also, that you will use whatever rhetorical device or conceptual cover to get it: even advocacy of the Constitution where that serves your purpose.

[bennyonesix]

nHvZD87G.jpg (39.5 KiB) Viewed 6623 times

[JimZipCode]

I disagree with that fundamentally and absolutely. Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist (and perhaps Roberts we will see if Obamacare was a Principled decision or not with this 9th abomination) were explicit that the Constitution does not enshrine their own policy preferences...

Yes, they have repeatedly said that.

...and ruled in ways that backed that up.

No. Pretty much all of Scalia's rulings, except maybe for ones on arcane points of administrative law, are entirely predicted by his being a conservative Catholic (who enjoys hunting).

The neolibs and shitlibs on the court today make no such claim. In their eyes, the Constitution forces an eternal movement to the left in social matters which is merely their personal policy preference.

That might describe Kennedy. Certainly not Kagan or the Wise Latina or RBG.

you can argue other justices in the past have advocated for their own policy preferences and that some were even "rightist", but you can't argue Rhenquist and Scalia et al did that.

That's precisely what they've done.

Unless of course you assert the tautology that arguing for the existence of outcome neutral rules is itself a value judgment.

No, I'm saying that Scalia lied, perhaps to himself more than anyone, when he claimed to be arriving at his decisions thru outcome-neutral rules.

I guess all judges aspire to arrive at every decision thru the application of outcome-neutral rules. But even deciding WHICH "outcome-neutral" rule should be the controlling one in any particular case, is usually an exercise in values. I don't think very many cases make it to the SC, that can be easily decided by applying an obvious outcome-neutral rule.

(Maybe Conroy v. Aniskoff was such a one. But it's not the norm.)

The appropriate attack on those men was/is that their judicial ideology is unwise, not that they are enshrining their own policy preferences

Their judicial ideology is empty and hypocritical. It just begs the question. Those judges fill in the gap with their own political or religious views, and then claim it's what was in the text the whole time. It's more dangerous and pernicious than other judicial philosophies, because people actually fall for the claim. They're "just calling balls and strikes". Yeah sure.

I'm not saying that Scalia is a "worse" jurist than Kennedy, obviously. And there's no doubt Scalia was more consistent in his thinking than say Breyer. And he wasn't the nutjob that Thomas is. But let's not pretend that Scalia had access to wisdom from on high. He just acted like he did.

[JimZipCode]

You should be honest and just tell the truth: you don't want to live under the Constitution. You want policy implemented which is irreconcilable with the US Constitution. And also, that you will use whatever rhetorical device or conceptual cover to get it: even advocacy of the Constitution where that serves your purpose.

Hey, you updated your post!

Nope, I'm just fine with the Constitution. I just insist that the 13th & 14th Amendments be included along with the rest of it, and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have real teeth. I think that the Court was dead wrong in the Slaughterhouse cases and especially Cruikshank, and some other 14th-related rulings from that era. (Where were the Textualists then?? )

I also insist that the 9th Amendment exists and means something, and should not be judicially erased from the Constitution by so-called "Originalists".

[bennyonesix]

Good post.

I'm an Alito fan. Scalia was a good justice though. He was consistent, thoughtful and made his reasoning clear.

I am fractionally as intelligent on my best day, but the model for judging should be Justice Holmes in his early years before he became so feeeble as to be overborne by Harold Laski. The Constitution does not prohibit bad, mean, stupid or evil decisions. And the Judiciary is not capable of running the police forces or the immigration of this country.

As to scalia, I think his 4th and 5th Amendment Jurisprudence was admirably distinct from his own preferences. And in line with the thinking of the Framers.

And to be honest, a religious conservative who likes hunting is pretty much a founding father. So it isn't a coincidence that his decisions are coincident with that. And since, well, the Constitution is the source of law he has a good argument that we should follow it.

I can't think of one social issue that rbg, kagan, sotomayor would allow the country to move rightward on. Can you?

I think you also need to admit the left justices are the least intelligent and talented crew in a hundred years. They are intellectual non entities. Their reason for being on the bench appears to be enactment of the Democratic Party's platform.

And I disagree all judges try to use neutral rules. Many judges, maybe most now especially with all the women (jfc) try and do justice. Better to have the people screwing one at least somewhat accountable to the electoral process...

And as to your arg that hard cases make it to SCOTUS? Sure. But do "hard cases" require taking on the regulation of the police via procedural due process/ 4th, 5th and 6th Amendment? Does it require them to regulate immigration as in the 9th's TRO? Did hard cases require Brennan to instal his utter failure of a 1st Amendment Doctrine? Did they require Douglas to create a right to privacy out of thin air? Or desegregate the schools?

Don't pretend what we have had is a sequence of hard cases where these poor judges can't help but decide as best they can. We've had an ideologically aggressive faction of justices who wanted to take power from the other branches and did so.

Now, you can agree with that. But you can't say there isn't any alternative because hard cases lawgic trap.

[bennyonesix]

You should be honest and just tell the truth: you don't want to live under the Constitution. You want policy implemented which is irreconcilable with the US Constitution. And also, that you will use whatever rhetorical device or conceptual cover to get it: even advocacy of the Constitution where that serves your purpose.

Hey, you updated your post!

Nope, I'm just fine with the Constitution. I just insist that the 13th & 14th Amendments be included along with the rest of it, and that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have real teeth. I think that the Court was dead wrong in the Slaughterhouse cases and especially Cruikshank, and some other 14th-related rulings from that era. (Where were the Textualists then?? :rolleyes: )

I also insist that the 9th Amendment exists and means something, and should not be judicially erased from the Constitution by so-called "Originalists".

I don't think I did update? If I did I apologize.

Ok. 1964 was legislation and Constitutional. I am for a strong legislature.

And i agree with all those. But what about the 10th?

How does Obergefell square with the constitution?

[dead man walking]

he even lies about playing golf.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/ ... index.html

[nafod]

No, I'm saying that Scalia lied, perhaps to himself more than anyone, when he claimed to be arriving at his decisions thru outcome-neutral rules.

I guess all judges aspire to arrive at every decision thru the application of outcome-neutral rules. But even deciding WHICH "outcome-neutral" rule should be the controlling one in any particular case, is usually an exercise in values. I don't think very many cases make it to the SC, that can be easily decided by applying an obvious outcome-neutral rule.

The Constitution builds an inconsistent logical system, where you can create different threads of argument that eventually conflict with each other. Doesn't mean you are at total liberty to go willy-nilly in whatever direction you want, but definitely at some point values have to play their role.

[nafod]

he even lies about playing golf.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/20/politics/ ... index.html

"I'm going to be working for you, I'm not going to have time to go play golf," Trump said

Heh

[Turdacious]

And our media embarrasses itself again by publishing an unsubstantiated benny-level conspiracy theory:

Physicians like me have also taken notice of Trump’s bizarre, volatile behavior. Given our experience, we can’t help but wonder if there’s a medical diagnosis to be made. After all, many medical conditions exhibit their first symptoms in the form of psychiatric issues and personality changes. One condition in particular is notable for doing so: Neurosyphilis.

https://newrepublic.com/article/140702/ ... e-behavior

[dead man walking]

Commonly recognized symptoms include irritability, loss of ability to concentrate, delusional thinking, and grandiosity. Memory, insight, and judgment can become impaired.

i don't know turd. it's entirely possible the guy's little dick is the source of his antics.

[nafod]

And our media embarrasses itself again by publishing an unsubstantiated benny-level conspiracy theory:

The left just needs to STFU and let the republicans and conservatives own Trump.

[dead man walking]

The left just needs to STFU. . .

The left just needs to STFU. . .

The left just needs to STFU. . .

The left just needs to STFU. . .

[JimZipCode]

The Constitution builds an inconsistent logical system, where you can create different threads of argument that eventually conflict with each other. Doesn't mean you are at total liberty to go willy-nilly in whatever direction you want, but definitely at some point values have to play their role.

Yes of course. But so-called "Originalists" lie about it.