When Reid endorsed Scalia for chief justice, he said: "I disagree with many of the results that he arrives at, but his reason for arriving at those results are (sic) very hard to dispute." There you have, starkly and ingenuously confessed, the judicial philosophy—if it can be dignified as such—of Reid and like-minded Democrats: Regardless of constitutional reasoning that can be annoyingly hard to refute, we care only about results. How many thoughtful Democrats will wish to take their stand where Reid has planted that flag?
This is the debate the country has needed for several generations: Should the Constitution be treated as so plastic, so changeable that it enables justices to reach whatever social outcomes – "results"—they, like the result-oriented senators who confirm them, consider desirable? If so, in what sense does the Constitution still constitute the nation?
This is a debate the president, who needs a victory, should relish. Will it, as Democrats mournfully say, "divide" the country? Yes. Debates about serious subjects do that. The real reason those Democrats are mournful is that they correctly suspect they are on the losing side of the divide.
Much of the initial dismay on the Left over Alito is deeply intellectually dishonest. As one commenter put it in a earlier post today,
Alito was nominated precisely because the right wants to up-end settled law. Wong-Sun, Brown, Griswold, Miranda, the Civil Rights cases, Loving v Virginia, Roe, Casey, etc. As I stated before, society has relied on these decisions, built institutions around them, made investments based on them, etc. Alito literally wants to destroy the foundation on which our society is built.
Uh, the foundation on which our society is built is limited, republican, self-government. Are you saying that Judge Alito literally wants to destroy republican self-government in North America? Or are you just asserting that legalized abortion on demand is the foundation of the country?
Gotta love the hyperbole, though.
And, you know, when I think about it, these are the exact arguments that could've been made—in fact, were made—when the Supreme Court took on Brown in the first place to re-examine Plessey v. Ferguson. I mean, the entire society of the South had been built on Plessey. Not that anyone on the Supreme Court cared about that when the time came to rule in Brown. But the standard isn't whether new decisions in these areas would be convenient. The standard is whether the decisions themselves are constitutionally legitimate. Moreover, I'm greatly amused by all this sudden respect for "precedent" on the Left, especially coming, as it does, from people who subscribe to the whole notion of the Constitution being a "Living Document".
I mean, Jebus Cripes, Steve Breyer can't even finish a bowl of Cheerios in the morning without jotting down a few notes about how the Constitution has changed since he went to bed. As soon as he gets into his office, he checks the internet to see if the Constitution has changed because the Supremely High Judicial Court of Kaplokistan laid down a ruling mandating that women should receive twice-weekly foot rubs, and that indicates an emerging world consensus that personal massages are a civil right.
So, as far as I'm concerned, your crocodile tears over the sacredness of precedent are just utter BS.
Maybe now you'll begin to get the tiniest glimmer of why the whole "Living Constitution" idea is so dangerous. If the Constitution is a fungible document that means whatever 5 justices of the Supreme Court want it to mean, then it literally means nothing upon which we can depend. If the Constitution is a Living Document, then precedents are nothing more than the musty old ideas of long-dead forebears that are owed no reverence.
And—and this is the kicker—if society begins to lose a little faith in those revered "superprecedents" that the Left holds in such esteem, then overturning them is every bit as legitimate as the original decision was. After all, if the Constitution merely reflects our current social state, then you have no grounds for complaint or to call for an increased adherence to stare decisis. Change, after all, is a part of life for living documents, too. And you lost the right to object to such judicially-mandated changes to the Constitution when you argued for them as long as the decisions were tilting your way.
Oh, and hey, here's another idea. In the last 37 years, Democrats have held the presidency for 12. Want some more judges that you like? Try winning an election once in while.
And while I'm on the subject of things that irk me, how about this editorial from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:
The nomination is troubling in that...it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity... In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America.
Um, I think we already have a government institution that's supposed to represent different groups of people. It's called the Congress. No, really. You can look it up. They have their own building and everything. We have these things called "elections" where we all get together and "vote" on the people we want to send to "Congress" to represent us.
The Supreme Court's job—the whole judiciary's job, in fact—is not to represent anyone. It's to apply the law as written to the facts of the controversies that are argued before them. That's it. There's no "black" meaning to the 3rd Amendment. There's no "feminist" reading of Admiralty law. There's no "hispanic" theory of tortious liability. There's reason, and the law, and that's about it. There is nothing at all about the judiciary that's representative. That's what we elect Senators, representatives, and to some extent, Presidents to do.
This is a microcosm of whole problem with the way the Left views the Courts. They view the Courts as another governing branch, which makes interest in "proper results" and "looking like America" and "making history" important to them. But the Judiciary is not a governing branch. At best, it's a referee for the real governing branches, the executive and the legislative.
Once you've bought into the idea that the Courts are there in some way to govern us, then you've already subscribed to a feeling of equanimity with tyranny. You've already become comfortable with the idea that a coterie of unelected lawyers who serve for life can become a sort of peerage—a legal nobility—who can legitimately direct our lives in any way they wish, whether we, the people, agree or not.
The really funny thing is that such an attitude is what's now known as "progressive" thinking.
The Supreme Court’s job-the whole judiciary’s job, in fact—is not to represent anyone. It’s to apply the law as written to the facts of the controversies that are argued before them. That’s it.
I’d give much to hear this discussed in the mainstream media just once. Or maybe taught in school?
If this is true. Then why even bother with SCOTUS. All you would need is a referee on the senate floor with a whistle and a yellow flag. If there are no penumbras or enumerations in the Constitution, shouldn’t a competent fact-checker be all that is needed?
Also, what about the ninth amendment. Does that have any consideration?
and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America
Dale, I’m shocked you didn’t jump all over that crap nugget.
Why didn’t they save ink and just call him an Uncle Tom? How f*cking racist is that sentence?!? Can the Milwaukee Journal please send out the bullet points detailing exactly how "Black America" thinks?? Sure, them blacks must be subhuman, none of them have an independent thought, right Milwaukee Journal? They think with the hive mind, right? The poor negroes need to be led by caring White father because they lack critical thinking skills I guess.
Where the f*ck does anyone get off making that kind of a statement? You hear that "Black America"?? Milwaukee Journal -like all good liberals- have absoluteky zero respect for you. You’re not thinking individuals. You’re just a hive-minded mass of votes to be harvested by the Dems.
The premise of your entire argument, Dale, is that the left is unfaithful to the text of the Constitution and the right is not. Liberals simply make it up as they go along, while conservatives strictly and faithfully adhere to the language of the document.
What a fu**** load of crap.
Let’s look at the Eleventh Amendment for a moment, an obscure one to most Americans, but an important one. It was - after all - the very first amendment after the Bill of Rights.
Here is what the amendment says:
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Here is what REHNQUIST had to say about it in 1996:
"[W]e have long recognized that blind reliance upon the text of the Eleventh Amendment is "to strain the Constitution and the law to a construction never imagined or dreamed of.""
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1130 (1996).
This is Rehnquist talking. Know who joined in his opinion? Thomas, Scalia O’Connor and Kennedy? Know who dissented? Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.
Now, I bring this up only as an example because it is the best illustration of how your premise is groundless. A true conservative honors the text of the Constitution, right? RIGHT? After all, when it was enacted, that was the language everyone agree on? Right? And yet here are the right’s heroes - Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, basically saying screw that language, it’s "blind reliance" to take it seriously. In fact, taking it seriously would take us places "never imagined or dreamed of." (Notice the clever use of the passive voice.)
Now, that response I hear coming from the some of the whiners on the right is that Rehnquist and Nino and Clarence were merely following precedent. But if ignoring the text of the constitution is wrong, and so clearly wrong, then stare decisis cannot get in the way.
Dale wrote:
The Supreme Court’s job-the whole judiciary’s job, in fact—is not to represent anyone. It’s to apply the law as written to the facts of the controversies that are argued before them. That’s it. There’s no "black" meaning to the 3rd Amendment. There’s no "feminist" reading of Admiralty law. There’s no "hispanic" theory of tortious liability. There’s reason, and the law, and that’s about it. There is nothing at all about the judiciary that’s representative. That’s what we elect Senators, representatives, and to some extent, Presidents to do.
This is a microcosm of whole problem with the way the Left views the Courts
I agree Dale, judges should not go beyond what is written. But your heroes on the right did just that with the amendment that immeidtely follows the Bill of Rights. They affirmed the principle that says fu** the language of the amendment. And they did it so affirmatively - and out in the open - and in your face. "Blindly following." They called you and your kind blind followers, Dale. Kinda stings, huh?
And yet you never hear from the wingers about the Eleventh Amendment and Seminole Tribe and the evisceration of the language of the amendment. Why? Because they are too busy preaching how it is the left, always the left, and only the left that plays games with the language of the Constitution. At a minimum, they are deceitful. At a maximum, they are .... Well, you can guess what I think.
So the next time some holier than thou winger punk says that the right wing merely wants to apply the law as written, and the left wants to legislate from the bench, you run to your computer, get on Westlaw, put your passowrd in, download Seminole Tribe, and then shove it down the punk’s throat.
The premise of your entire argument, Dale, is that the left is unfaithful to the text of the Constitution and the right is not.
Te premise of my argument is that the Left is far more prone to ignoring the text of the Constitution to get desirable results. The "Living Constitution" movement, moreover, is pretty much entirely a creature of the Left.
Res Ipsa Loquitor.
You argument’s entire justification is, "The right sometimes does it, too!"
So what? That’s not a defense. That’s not even an argument.
"Also, what about the ninth amendment. Does that have any consideration?"
Of course it does.
Here’s the difference. The Left believes that it is the role of judges to portion out the unenumerated rights as it sees fit without regard to the will of the people. The Right tends to believe that the people of this country ought to be the ones to do that, as they did when they ratified the Bill of Rights and the remaining Constitutional amendments.
That’s kind of how originalism works. When you think of the Ninth Amendment and you ask yourself "How do we go about getting some new Constitutional rights?" consider how we got the rights the Constitution itself grants us.
Te premise of my argument is that the Left is far more prone to ignoring the text of the Constitution to get desirable results. The "Living Constitution" movement, moreover, is pretty much entirely a creature of the Left.
No - that is the entirety of your argument. But it is wrong. If you think the example I cited is the only example of how judges on the right twist and/or ignore the language of the constitution to get the result they desire, you are sadly mistaken. For every example you cite, I can do you one better. I cited Seminole Tribe as only the most obvious example.
The problem, Dale, is that you have bought into the propaganda. The cartoonish version. In this version, the right leaning judges wear the white hats, and the left leaning ones wear the black ones. It’s the Limbaugh version. Fox News. You know - axe to grind people.
The sad reality is that both sides twist the written word to reach a result. The left is just a little more honest about it. For instance, in Seminole Tribe, for all I know Rehnquist may be right - maybe blind faith to the textr of the Eleventh Amendment would lead to absurd results. But to simply ignore this opinion, or to treat it as some kind of anamoly, is ridiculous.
The reality is the judicial branch represents powerful interests battling in the public arena over ideology and power. Both sides will use well honed advocacy tactics to get to the desired result - lawyers and judges. If that means ignoring the very text of the law itself, as the wingers did in Seminole Tribe, so be it.
Sorry to burst your rather naive bubble their Dale, but both sides do it. You’re right Dale - that’s not a defense or an argument, it is simply a fact.
"For every example you cite, I can do you one better. I cited Seminole Tribe as only the most obvious example."
So share some of these other examples so that we can fully comprehend how often the courts ignore the text of the Constitution - or is this mere bluster?
As much as I hate to admit it, you’re correct on the Seminole Tribe v Florida. It is an "activist" ruling by the SC justices that I don’t consider to be activists.
See, here’s the thing: I always verify (if possible) when you post something, so I googled this case. Oddly, the first hit from Google wasn’t the case itself, but a Federalist Society breakdown of the ruling. This is great for me because, 1) I’m not a lawyer and have no desire to break down pages of legalese text, 2) I don’t have time to read all of said legalese text, and 3) I’ll trust The Federalist’s Society synopsis, as I believe them to be highly reputable, although YMMV.
Even worse, after cutting through all the arrogance and "holier than attitude" of your posts, I realized that I agreed with you a second time:
The sad reality is that both sides twist the written word to reach a result. The left is just a little more honest about it. For instance, in Seminole Tribe, for all I know Rehnquist may be right - maybe blind faith to the textr of the Eleventh Amendment would lead to absurd results. But to simply ignore this opinion, or to treat it as some kind of anamoly, is ridiculous.
So I considered all of what you said in this thread and found this to be most important, "I agree Dale, judges should not go beyond what is written." Do you really? Then I must ask, do you agree with the Griswold decision? Or Roe v Wade? Actually let me ask it like this (since my first question was somewhat rhetorical): why do you agree with these rulings if you agree with Dale?
Heck let’s make it even more current. Do you agree with the ruling in the Texas sodomy decision (whose name escapes me)? Or Kelo? Why?
As I stated on another post, I dislike Roe v Wade, et al because it’s a bad ruling of constitutional law. Same as Kelo, same the Texas sodomy case. I find all of them terrible on moral grounds, but they should be struck down because they’re piss poor constitutional law. Along those same lines, while I agree on moral grounds with the medical marijauna case, it’s bad con law and should be reversed. I also think that assisted suicide is as morally awful as abortion, but I do hope that Oregon wins because it is IMO the proper costitutional decision.
So MK, you should be right on board with Alito, in that he is a textualist that’s seemingly done his best to use the Constitution and prior rulings to decide the case before him. Thus, while his nomination should excite you, it won’t, because reveals your fundemental dishonesty (of which you accuse Dale) - yall on the left have absolutely more to lose with another textualist SC justice. So many of your liberal shibboleths have a very real possibility of being struck down that you cannot help but go after a enormously qualified man like Sam Alito.
Well, I guess it really is your ox that’s about to be gored MK...
Sorry to burst your rather naive bubble their Dale, but both sides do it. You’re right Dale - that’s not a defense or an argument, it is simply a fact.
You can search high and low, but you’ll find no instances of Dale ever arguing otherwise. In fact, none of us has ever suggested otherwise. So what is your point? As far as I can tell, you’re simply trying to change the subject and avoid the point Dale did make.
MKUltra teditiously asserted that when Rehnquist wrote:
""[W]e have long recognized that blind reliance upon the text of the Eleventh Amendment is "to strain the Constitution and the law to a construction never imagined or dreamed of.""
Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 116 S. Ct. 1114, 1130 (1996)."
that this was somehow an "activist" decision, and implicitly that this single example stands in shining counterbalance to the sum of the leftist, "progressive" Supreme Court decisions since the "golden age".
Warrior Needs Food Badly seems to agree with him on that score.
"As much as I hate to admit it, you’re correct on the Seminole Tribe v Florida. It is an "activist" ruling by the SC justices that I don’t consider to be activists."
However, the Consitution gives the national government original jurisdiciton concerning the more-native-than-thou tribes, so the 11th has no bearing on the point. This may have been Rehnquist making an "activist" sentiment known, but you can’t claim that on the basis of what MKUltra quoted or the 11th amendment—not and be intellectually honest.
“Let’s look at the Eleventh Amendment for a moment, an obscure one to most Americans…”
Yes, MK, let us look at this obscure Amendment, and ignore all of the much, much more important and meaningful Amendments which form the framework of this discussion [why did I use the word “frame” here?] about judicial activism.
“It was - after all - the very first amendment after the Bill of Rights.”
And this factoid is very imporant, because…..?
“Know who joined in his opinion? Thomas, Scalia O’Connor and Kennedy? Know who dissented? Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer.”
Notice the left/right split here? Do you need to read the particular decision to see why it might not be strong precedent? Attorneys such as MK often cite obscure (MK’s exact description of her precedent) cases to support their otherwise unsupportable contentions, but the court usually ignores these precedents under the long recognized principle that hard cases make bad law.
“Now, I bring this up … because it is the best illustration of how your premise is groundless…”
Bite on this one and you have assigned your whole issue to be decided on how the court acted on an obscure Amendment on a hard case. Do you think that is a good thing to do?
“I agree Dale, judges should not go beyond what is written.”
MK doesn’t mean this statement [file it and beat her over the head with it in future arguments on this point] and will deny it to the point of dying in any other context. Here, it is just the next stepping stone in her paper argument.
“…your heroes on the right did just that with the amendment that immeidtely (sic) follows the Bill of Rights.”
And that placement is soooo important why? Well, she hasn’t said, but in this discussion that obscure Amendment needs some kind of bolstering and this is apparently the best that can be offered.
“They affirmed the principle that says fu** the language of the amendment. And they did it so affirmatively - and out in the open - and in your face.”
Translation sans hyperbole: “They held that, in this case, following the exact text of the Amendment would not be consistent with the intent of the framers" – hardly the creation of emanations from a penumbra - and not in anyone’s face.
“Because they are too busy preaching how it is the left, always the left, and only the left…”
Why would they muddy their message by preaching about the few, very, very few cases like the one MK has pumped up here? The issue is the huge number of cases where the left has ignored the Constitution, so many that they have coined a philosophy for doing so (Living Constitution) not that the right has never, ever, ever done so, or that the numbers are 50/50. They are 99 to one. [no, I haven’t counted them] The preaching of the right is not suspect here, despite MK’s protestations to the contrary.
“So the next time some holier than thou winger punk says that the right wing merely wants to apply the law as written, and the left wants to legislate from the bench, you run to your computer, get on Westlaw, put your passowrd (sic) in, download Seminole Tribe, and then shove it down the punk’s throat.”
What is one to make of this? She is doing her imitation of a hard nose. Laughable? Can anyone say "elite liberal trying to sell wolf tickets"? [translation: trying to be tough.]
“For every example you cite, I can do you one better. I cited Seminole Tribe as only the most obvious example.”
Your mama wears combat boots. Bluster.
“But to simply ignore this opinion, or to treat it as some kind of anamoly, (sic) is ridiculous.”
No it’s not. It is an obscure case concerning an obscure Amendment. One swallow does not a Summer make.
“If that means ignoring the very text of the law itself, as the wingers did in Seminole Tribe, so be it.”
Yes, this is the position of the left. Do you agree with this position? Does “everybody” do it? Is our problem that the entire SCOTUS is doing it? That is what MK would have us believe, on the basis of one case based upon an obscure Amendment. Poor souls pay those like MK to construct arguments from sand, but judges know better. I trust that you too know better. The multitude of cases that MK alludes to exist only in her fevered mind.
When you think of the Ninth Amendment and you ask yourself "How do we go about getting some new Constitutional rights?" consider how we got the rights the Constitution itself grants us.
Umm. You don’t understand how rights work in the American system, do you? The Constitution doesn’t grant me a damned thing. The Constitution grants the government limited powers to protect the rights I already have. The rights are inalienable. Or, to quote some folks:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The idea that the Constitution or anything else "grants" rights is one of the more pernicious falsehoods ever propagated in this country. If more people remembered that rights are inalienable and not subject to government approval, we’d be a hell of a lot better off.
Sorry. Pet peeve, continue arguing about judicial follies.
Actually, it was the Federalist Society that agreed with mkultra, although their analysis recognized your point. I was hoping that they wouldn’t. I do point out the dishonesty of her comments/position later on, since by her own admission, she should be tremendously excited with the prospect of Alito on the USSC.
Ah well, logical consistency isn’t a hallmark of the left...
I am a bit confused about Seminole.. I read into it and I don’t believe I got to the heart of it. Did Rehnquist use the Foreign State clause of the 11 Amendment to apply to the autonomous Seminole tribe? No such thing existed at the time the amendment was ratified, so I would say it needs some interpreting to say how it would apply to that situation. As I understand it, and please correct me if this is incorrect, recognized tribes are not under state jurisdiction, and probably are somewhat under the jurisdiction of the federal government, but they do have some federal autonomy. This situation would seem to be in between a state resident and a foreign resident. Also, if this is the case, I don’t see why the tribe would need to negotiate with the state at all.
I would appreciate any clarification on the matter.
Yes, MK, let us look at this obscure Amendment, and ignore all of the much, much more important and meaningful Amendments which form the framework of this discussion [why did I use the word “frame” here?] about judicial activism
I could respond to all your inane comments, baseless conclusions, and hyperbole. But this one statement establishes your ignorance beyond a reasonable doubt.
The Eleventh Amendment is obscure, huh? Hmmm. Well, my friend, you don’t know jack.
In the last few Supreme Court terms the Eleventh Amendment has had center stage. It defines the rights of millions and millions state employees with respect to federal legislation. The application of Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the FMLA and several other pieces of legislation to state employees and state government more generally is governed by the Eleventh Amendment. It goes straight to the heart of the debate over federalism and how power is divided up in this country.
Only someone completely ignorant would call the Eleventh Amendment obscure. As I said, you don’t know jack.
So MK, you should be right on board with Alito, in that he is a textualist that’s seemingly done his best to use the Constitution and prior rulings to decide the case before him.
Strip Search Sammy lost the right to call himself a textualist when he dissented in the strip search case on the ground that someone not named in the warrant could nevertheless be searched because the "context" suggested the person’s name should have been there, even though it wasn’t there. Even Homeland Security Director Chertoff - no flaming lib he - couldn’t agree with that nonsense.
As I said, all judges twist the meaning of words to get the result they want. Only in the strip search case, Sammy went even farther - he inserted words that weren’t even there in the first place.
What is even stranger about Libertarian support for Alito is that he is a pro-government jurist.
"Sam Alito is just what George Bush is looking for: a big government conservative who will almost always side with the government against the individual, and the federal government against the state,"
Know who said that? Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for Fox News. The strip search case is but one example.
I think you’re missing the point on the strip search dissent, MK. Alito didn’t argue that "context" gave them a right to search, or that a word existed where it did, in fact, not; he argued that it was "reasonable" for the police in question to believe that the warrant gave them that right. The law in question set the bar at "reasonable" understanding by the police. Further, there’s also the matter of probable cause, which could reasonably apply under the circumstances.
Reasonable people can disagree about the proper outcome of a case like that, but Alito’s decision was quite well-grounded and, at the risk of overusing a word, reasonable.
It’s sad that the "fight" on Alito is going to ignore 95% of what actually matters. We desperately NEED to have a big, national discussion on the Constitution, it’s been ignored far too long, yet instead it’s going to be yet another partisan sniping match....
I could really care less about what most of the Left or the part of the Right that actually holds power is talking about. If we’re to throw out deeper philosophical questions & just think results, results, results, then here’s a litmus test I could actually get behind:
Does Alito believe that the Constitution allows US citizens to be held indefinitely without charges or a trial?
The Constitution is much clearer on things like that than it is on abortion. No one can possibly answer that question with "yes" and be fit for the bench.
If I were a flim-flammer such as you are, I could take this tack: “But [MK, using your approach,] this one statement establishes your ignorance beyond a reasonable doubt.” MK, I quote you from your original acomment (using approved NYT [the paper of record] rules for quotations):
“Let’s look at the Eleventh Amendment for a moment, an obscure one…”
Such tactics are reserved for the MSM and liberal wackos.
“I could respond to all your inane comments, baseless conclusions, and hyperbole.”
No, you can’t MK, so you try the same tired tactic:
“But this one statement establishes your ignorance beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I thought we suspended hyperbole?
“In the last few Supreme Court terms the Eleventh Amendment has had center stage. It defines the rights of millions and millions state employees with respect to federal legislation. The application of Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, the FMLA and several other pieces of legislation to state employees and state government more generally is governed by the Eleventh Amendment. It goes straight to the heart of the debate over federalism and how power is divided up in this country.”
This is a much better description [for your purposes] of the Amendment than your first feeble effort above. I guess I must have not been watching while it was “on center stage”. Center stage for a government attorney [such as yourself?], perhaps? Get in the game, MK.
Well, we see that MK has been hanging out on the usual leftist sites and has picked up some clever slogans. Slogans are not too effective outside the cocoon, MK.
Then you repeat the same presentation that was shot down in the thread on this subject before. What, you think you have a new audience?
“As I said, [Yes, MK, we heard you the first time.] all judges twist the meaning of words to get the result they want. Only in the strip search case, Sammy went even farther - he inserted words that weren’t even there in the first place."
I guess your point against the right is that the right objects that when the activist lefty judges interpreted the original wording in the Constitution “penumbra” and “emanations”, they twisted them into penumbras and emanations not meant by the original framers. Is that your point? Otherwise, you are an [argumentively speaking] ass.
Or, maybe you just wanted to use your clever Sammy epithet.
Otherwise, you are an [argumentively speaking] ass.
Wow - what a high-minded comeback.
Like I said, the Eleventh A. is obscure to most Americans - because most don’t know jack about the constitution. Guess I would include both of you in that category. In reality, it is important.
Tell me, oh wise ones, what interpretation of the Eleventh Amendment do you suscribe to? Funny, but I haven’t heard one word about the law from you two. You seem pretty good at name calling, though.
Seriously, notherbob2, I want to hear it: Do you suscribe to a textualist based interpretation of the 11th? Or do you take the view of Scalia, et al, that the text doesn’t control? And what is your rationale.
MK, I believe that it is probably a good thing for you that you are familiar enough with the Eleventh Amendment to pose these questions. Second or third year law students might find them quite interesting. Readers on an internet magazine that discusses current political issues? No so much. However, it is good that you have some life beyond current Democratic talking points. Come toward the light.
MK, while I am speaking for myself and not notherbob2, the 11th does not apply to the to case in question in the way you would like, because the members of the Indian tribes are not citizens of the states in which they domicile, they are citizens of the United States of America—they are subject to the laws of the states in which they domicile or travel only when not on their tribe’s territory. Essentially, when on their reservations, they have extraterritorial status WRT the states. The feds have original jurisdiction in all matters dealing with the tribes.
There is no evidence to the contrary of this in the history of the 11th amendment. Can you rebut with evidence?
