Ruth Bader Ginsberg versus NRA President

[kalm]

BTW, the 14th Amendment was a bitch to the South but a lot of the extent to which it is a "bitch" today is due to Constitutional revisionism. Or you might think Constitutional revisionism makes it better.

If you do find and check out the Bork book I mentioned in the past thread you can read about how the 14th Amendment has been used to do things it was not originally understood to do. It's basically been used as a "catch all" to justify just about anything the Court wants to justify. From saying States can't prohibit abortion on one side to saying the Florida recount process was "unconstitutional" on the other.

But again, both liberal and conservative judges do it. Any judge who supports the federal government controlling what plants you can grow in your backyard or interfering with a states electoral process or supports sodomy laws 's clearly an activist and non-constructionist.

Or is Scalia's voting history a "living, breathing, record"?

[CitadelGrad]

BTW, the 14th Amendment was a bitch to the South but a lot of the extent to which it is a "bitch" today is due to Constitutional revisionism. Or you might think Constitutional revisionism makes it better.

If you do find and check out the Bork book I mentioned in the past thread you can read about how the 14th Amendment has been used to do things it was not originally understood to do. It's basically been used as a "catch all" to justify just about anything the Court wants to justify. From saying States can't prohibit abortion on one side to saying the Florida recount process was "unconstitutional" on the other.

But again, both liberal and conservative judges do it. Any judge who supports the federal government controlling what plants you can grow in your backyard or interfering with a states electoral process or supports sodomy laws 's clearly an activist and non-constructionist.

Or is Scalia's voting history a "living, breathing, record"?

In two of the three instances that you mentioned, he supported state laws and the right of states to make laws that don't specifically infringe on federal powers. As for your assertion that he interfered in a state's electoral process, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Supreme Court did not intervene. It was Al Gore who make the matter a judicial matter by petitioning the Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled by a 7-2 margin that Florida's recount methods were unconstitutional. That's a pretty solid consensus.

[kalm]

But again, both liberal and conservative judges do it. Any judge who supports the federal government controlling what plants you can grow in your backyard or interfering with a states electoral process or supports sodomy laws 's clearly an activist and non-constructionist.

Or is Scalia's voting history a "living, breathing, record"?

In two of the three instances that you mentioned, he supported state laws and the right of states to make laws that don't specifically infringe on federal powers. As for your assertion that he interfered in a state's electoral process, you have no idea what you are talking about. The Supreme Court did not intervene. It was Al Gore who make the matter a judicial matter by petitioning the Supreme Court. SCOTUS ruled by a 7-2 margin that Florida's recount methods were unconstitutional. That's a pretty solid consensus.

[youngterrier]

Fuck states' rights. I prefer Human rights. If your states' rights don't infringe upon human rights, keep them, otherwise fuck states' rights.

I really don't care if the above is in line with the founding father's viewpoints. Our concepts of equality and rights evolve, and it really shouldn't matter if someone else is granted new rights if doesn't infringe on someone else's.

[Ibanez]

This whole living document/constructionist debate is pointless because it's been going on since the constitution was ratified (think Jefferson vs Hamilton on centralized banking). I won't say I don't care how it is interpreted, but at the same time I think people get too out of whack over "activist judges"

I think that's a basic line of argument frequently used by people who believe in the "living Constitution" approach. I don't know if you'll do it and I wouldn't blame you if you didn't but see if you can find Robert Bork's book The Tempting of America in the library or something and read Chapters 7 (The Original Understanding and 8 (Objections to Original Understanding).

Also look at Chapters 2 through 5; which trace the evolution of Constitutional revisionism starting with the New Deal days through the Warren Court and onward.

I do not think it has been like this since the Constitution was ratified. Not that there weren't any significant changes or "clarifications" at all but it wasn't like this.

Ignore chapters 1, 6 8, 10 and 12. They're garbage.