Important Prop. 8 Ruling Today

[Jeff Lebowski]

No I didn't.

Well, in true originalist spirit, let's go back to what you posted. You don't find this statement to be more than a little self-serving?

It doesn't make sense to you that I am concerned that the constitution is being trampled on or changed at will by a few justices? Even if you don't agree with my conclusion, I'd expect you to understand my concern for the constitution being interpreted in a way that is clearly wrong.

To be fair, I understand your concern. I just think your concern is completely unfounded.

[Jacob]

Well, in true originalist spirit, let's go back to what you posted. You don't find this statement to be more than a little self-serving?



To be fair, I understand your concern. I just think your concern is completely unfounded.

So you've misread my post. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I'll try to be more clear in the future if you try not to project so much. My point was merely that, in my humble opinion, the constitution clearly does not require gay marriage. When I think it is interpreted in a way that is clearly wrong, that is of great concern to me. I didn't ask for you, or anyone, to agree with me. I even said as much. I asked for you (actually Dan, in that post) to understand why that might be of great concern even if I wasn't so concerned with the outcome of a popular election. He couldn't understand how I distinguished the two. One is concern over the issue--I'm less concerned with that. The other is a concern about process and the rule of law--I'm much more concerned about that.

[UtahDan]

I can't wait for the next Naughton painting based on judicial review

In his "One Nation Under God" painting he has a copy of Marbury v. Madison (1803) laying on the ground. If you scroll over it is says "This case allows for judicial review of the Constitution and made it possible for appointed activist judges to interpret the Constitution, creating a new mandate that in turn becomes the law of the land."

[falafel]

So you've misread my post. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I'll try to be more clear in the future if you try not to project so much. My point was merely that, in my humble opinion, the constitution clearly does not require gay marriage. When I think it is interpreted in a way that is clearly wrong, that is of great concern to me. I didn't ask for you, or anyone, to agree with me. I even said as much. I asked for you (actually Dan, in that post) to understand why that might be of great concern even if I wasn't so concerned with the outcome of a popular election. He couldn't understand how I distinguished the two. One if concern over the issue--I'm less concerned with that. The other is a concern about process and the rule of law--I'm much more concerned about that.

The constitution doesn't address hardly anything, really. Does your originalism lead you to be a states' rights advocate?

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

My point was merely that, in my humble opinion, the constitution clearly does not require gay marriage.

Does the constitution require any kind of marriage? Gay, interracial, interfaith?

[Flystripper]

Your insistence on creating straw men reflects poorly.



In what way was it misleading? The section you quoted and bolded merely continues to inform us of how she would not look to the US constitution if she were to draft a new one. Your response is unhelpful. Typical or [sic] morans.

I am not an expert in consitiutions of other countries, but something tells me that if we were to look closely at the South African constitution and the Canadian document there would be principles and ideas that are also included in the US Constitution. Looking at other nation's constitutions is like looking at a recent patent and noticing that it contains much that is prior art. So I can't get too worked up when she says she would look to other documents than the US Constitution when the other documents most assuredly have the US Consitution as a major influence.

[Jeff Lebowski]

So you've misread my post. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I'll try to be more clear in the future if you try not to project so much. My point was merely that, in my humble opinion, the constitution clearly does not require gay marriage. When I think it is interpreted in a way that is clearly wrong, that is of great concern to me. I didn't ask for you, or anyone, to agree with me. I even said as much. I asked for you (actually Dan, in that post) to understand why that might be of great concern even if I wasn't so concerned with the outcome of a popular election. He couldn't understand how I distinguished the two. One is concern over the issue--I'm less concerned with that. The other is a concern about process and the rule of law--I'm much more concerned about that.

I think it is safe to say that each and every one of us has tremendous respect for the constitution and would be deeply concerned if we believed it was being trampled or disregarded. That should go without saying.

[UtahDan]

So you've misread my post. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I'll try to be more clear in the future if you try not to project so much. My point was merely that, in my humble opinion, the constitution clearly does not require gay marriage. When I think it is interpreted in a way that is clearly wrong, that is of great concern to me. I didn't ask for you, or anyone, to agree with me. I even said as much. I asked for you (actually Dan, in that post) to understand why that might be of great concern even if I wasn't so concerned with the outcome of a popular election. He couldn't understand how I distinguished the two. One is concern over the issue--I'm less concerned with that. The other is a concern about process and the rule of law--I'm much more concerned about that.

I'm still curious to know whether you are ready to do away with all the substantive due process protections found in the 5th amendment.

I'm sorry, but your analysis here is so poor (you totally misunderstood the Loving case for example) that I am not buying that you are making a stand for originalism notwithstanding your tiresome platitudes. You are making a stand against gay marriage which you disingenuously claim to have no strong feeling about and are trying to marshal originialism to the aid of your argument. Of course I understand what originialism is and of course I understand the concerns it raises. My problem is with you because I think you're full of crap.

[SoCalCoug]

Your insistence on creating straw men reflects poorly.



In what way was it misleading? The section you quoted and bolded merely continues to inform us of how she would not look to the US constitution if she were to draft a new one. Your response is unhelpful. Typical or [sic] morans.

If you actually look at the constitutions she's referring to, you'd recognize them has having drawn from the principles of the U.S. Constitution. "We, the people of South Africa . . ." The South African constitution has a bill of rights, for instance.

It's not like she's reaching out to completely alien constitutions; she's referring to constitutions that are based in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps they've even improved on it or clarified it.

Is it that you truly disagree with what she says, or is it that she's considered one of the "liberal" justices and so you find a way to criticize what she says?

[Jacob]

The constitution doesn't address hardly anything, really. Does your originalism lead you to be a states' rights advocate?

I don't know what you mean by "states rights advocate." You could mean something other than what I would mean. I don't have my own originalism. I like Justices Thomas and Roberts. I really like the old U professor and 10th circuit judge McConnell. I like most of the guys at the Volokh conspiracy. Usually Randy Barnett, who has written books on the topic.

Does the constitution require any kind of marriage? Gay, interracial, interfaith?

No. Not at all.

I am not an expert in consitiutions of other countries, but something tells me that if we were to look closely at the South African constitution and the Canadian document there would be principles and ideas that are also included in the US Constitution. Looking at other nation's constitutions is like looking at a recent patent and noticing that it contains much that is prior art. So I can't get too worked up when she says she would look to other documents than the US Constitution when the other documents most assuredly have the US Consitution as a major influence.

Not being an expert, you might be surprised at what you find in Canada et al. I'm no expert either, but several of those documents are more concerned with "human rights" and don't deal much with property rights, which is the basis of our constitution. Perhaps it would be less objectionable to say that if you were drafting a Bill of Rights in 2012 you would look more to those other documents. But she said she wouldn't look to our at all. And she is on the supreme court. I find that very disconcerting. She'll probably backtrack in a future interview.

I'm still curious to know whether you are ready to do away with all the substantive due process protections found in the 5th amendment.

I'm sorry, but your analysis here is so poor (you totally misunderstood the Loving case for example) that I am not buying that you are making a stand for originalism notwithstanding your tiresome platitudes. You are making a stand against gay marriage which you disingenuously claim to have no strong feeling about and are trying to marshal originialism to the aid of your argument. Of course I understand what originialism is and of course I understand the concerns it raises. My problem is with you because I think you're full of crap.

You got it all wrong. I'm sure there is nothing I can do do convince you otherwise. You've got me pegged.

[falafel]

I don't know what you mean by "states rights advocate." You could mean something other than what I would mean. I don't have my own originalism. I like Justices Thomas and Roberts. I really like the old U professor and 10th circuit judge McConnell. I like most of the guys at the Volokh conspiracy. Usually Randy Barnett, who has written books on the topic.

Are you the type of person that wishes to limit the federal government to only those specifically enumerated powers as listed in the constitution? And then everything else is left to the states to govern? Perhaps I've misused the term "states rights advocate."

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, just trying to understand where you're coming from when you say your an originalist.

Part of the problem with originalism, as I see it, is that the conditions under which the constitution was written are so fundamentally different than current conditions that the "original meaning" of the constitution loses nearly all its meaning today. In order to really enforce the original meaning of the constitution, it seems that we'd need to roll back society 200+ years.

[Jacob]

If you actually look at the constitutions she's referring to, you'd recognize them has having drawn from the principles of the U.S. Constitution. "We, the people of South Africa . . ." The South African constitution has a bill of rights, for instance.

It's not like she's reaching out to completely alien constitutions; she's referring to constitutions that are based in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps they've even improved on it or clarified it.

Is it that you truly disagree with what she says, or is it that she's considered one of the "liberal" justices and so you find a way to criticize what she says?

It says "We the people...?" Well, never mind then. And it has a "bill of rights?" Wow. Obviously I am uninformed about these documents. Perhaps we could borrow some documents from the "People's Republic of North Korea, China? If they are republics of people, after all...

I haven't said that the S African constitution is an especially bad document. I haven't the slightest idea. But for the final arbiter of our constitution to say that she wouldn't even look to our constitution. Well, that speaks volumes. But, as I already said, it's not a surprise. If I'm not mistaken, she cited the S African bill of rights in an opinion striking down a US law as unconstitutional.

[LA Ute]

Sigh.

[NorthwestUteFan]

In order to really enforce the original meaning of the constitution, it seems that we'd need to roll back society 200+ years.

This is why DU Ute sarcastically referenced the ability we have to 'update' the constitution.


[YOUTUBE]dUlGp249P24[/YOUTUBE]

[DU Ute]

This is why DU Ute sarcastically referenced the ability we have to 'update' the constitution.


[YOUTUBE]dUlGp249P24[/YOUTUBE]

I didn't put it very well, but all this boils down to the decisions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg being more important than the intent of all the founders put together. That's what they wanted.