Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the NRA President are having an argument about gun control when it starts to become testy and personal. "I bet you aren't even that good of a hunter." Ginsberg sneers. "You probably just like to hunt because it makes you feel tough. Can you prove you're a good hunter?"
The NRA president thinks for a minute and says "I'll bet you $1000 I can find a 20-point buck within the next 24 hours."
"Care to put that in writing?" Ginsberg asks him. The NRA president agrees and they create a written agreement for the bet.
After the 24 hours has almost expired, the NRA president returns to Ginsberg empty handed. He takes a dollar bill and an ink pen out of his pocket. He places the dollar bill on Ginsberg's desk and makes 20 dots on it with the pen.
"I win." says the NRA president. "I'll take cash or check."
"What is this?" Ginsberg asks outraged.
"It's your twenty point buck."
"You were supposed to bring a DEER! That was the agreement!" Ginsberg shouted back at him.
"The agreement just says I have to get a twenty-point buck, it doesn't say what kind."
"What makes you think you've won this bet! This goes completely against the written agreement you signed!"
"Sorry judge," the NRA president says "but our agreement is a living, breathing document which need not be interpreted in the context of which it was created."

Doesn't Ginsburg have pancreatic cancer? It should be about time for that broad to kick the bucket.

CitadelGrad, pancreatic cancer is a horrible disease. One of my law partners died from it, and it wasn't pretty. Justice Ginsburg deserves sympathy in that regard.

Ivytalk wrote:CitadelGrad, pancreatic cancer is a horrible disease. One of my law partners died from it, and it wasn't pretty. Justice Ginsburg deserves sympathy in that regard.

Agreed.

Ivytalk wrote:CitadelGrad, pancreatic cancer is a horrible disease. One of my law partners died from it, and it wasn't pretty. Justice Ginsburg deserves sympathy in that regard.

Fuck her. She's a cancer on the nation.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:CitadelGrad, pancreatic cancer is a horrible disease. One of my law partners died from it, and it wasn't pretty. Justice Ginsburg deserves sympathy in that regard.

Fuck her. She's a cancer on the nation.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:CitadelGrad, pancreatic cancer is a horrible disease. One of my law partners died from it, and it wasn't pretty. Justice Ginsburg deserves sympathy in that regard.

Fuck her. She's a cancer on the nation.

All this ^ means she feels differently than you on some things...
she might argue that you're a cancer on the Nation

No..?

CitadelGrad wrote:Doesn't Ginsburg have pancreatic cancer? It should be about time for that broad to kick the bucket.

It'd be better if she can stay alive and on the Court until the person in the White House is not a Democrat. And ESPECIALLY not Obama.

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Fuck her. She's a cancer on the nation.

All this ^ means she feels differently than you on some things...
she might argue that you're a cancer on the Nation

No..?

Because she feels differently? No.

This has nothing to do with feelings. It has everything to do with her political agenda and her demonstrated willingness to use her judicial position to advance her political agenda.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
All this ^ means she feels differently than you on some things...
she might argue that you're a cancer on the Nation

No..?

Because she feels differently? No.

This has nothing to do with feelings. It has everything to do with her political agenda and her demonstrated willingness to use her judicial position to advance her political agenda.

So you hope the Scalia dies of pancreatic cancer too then, right?

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Because she feels differently? No.

This has nothing to do with feelings. It has everything to do with her political agenda and her demonstrated willingness to use her judicial position to advance her political agenda.

So you hope the Scalia dies of pancreatic cancer too then, right?

I fail to see how adhering to original intent is advancing a political agenda.

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
All this ^ means she feels differently than you on some things...
she might argue that you're a cancer on the Nation

No..?

Because she feels differently? No.

This has nothing to do with feelings. It has everything to do with her political agenda and her demonstrated willingness to use her judicial position to advance her political agenda.

You seem pretty emotional about it...
I'm going to stick with my original assessment

Chizzang wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
Because she feels differently? No.

This has nothing to do with feelings. It has everything to do with her political agenda and her demonstrated willingness to use her judicial position to advance her political agenda.

You seem pretty emotional about it...
I'm going to stick with my original assessment

No. I don't really have emotions.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
So you hope the Scalia dies of pancreatic cancer too then, right?

I fail to see how adhering to original intent is advancing a political agenda.

Oh puhhhlease.

He duck hunts with Dick Cheney and attends Koch brothers functions. He loves states rights unless it has to do with homosexuality or pot. He's a political hack in robes.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
I fail to see how adhering to original intent is advancing a political agenda.

Oh puhhhlease.

He duck hunts with Dick Cheney and attends Koch brothers functions. He loves states rights unless it has to do with homosexuality or pot. He's a political hack in robes.

I assume you are referring to Lawrence v. Texas and Gonzalez v. Raich. You should read Scalia's opinions in both. His reasoning is pretty sound. In the case of Raich, I'll say that if libs want to live by the Commerce Clause, they have to accept that they may also die by the Commerce Clause.

Scalia pretty consistently makes rulings consistent with what would be expected of a strict constructionist. Ginsberg consistently rules in a manner consistent with the idea that the Constitution is a living document. It all depends on your point of view when it comes to who is right and who is wrong, and the best we will ever do is to agree to disagree.

I am personally a strict constructionist and usually side with Scalia; I do not believe the founders had in mind the kinds of contortions we have put the Constitution through. Plus, liberal interpretations of the document worry me, because the concern is that we eventually will read fundamental governmental changes into it.

All that being said, SCOTUS rulings are inherently political, because the ideas behind the Constitution were and still are inherently political. My personal take on it is that the core intention of the drafters was to promise Americans that there are boundaries outside of which the Federal government cannot step. Any ruling which implies or allows (implicitly or otherwise) the Federal government increased authority is therefore unconstitutional if you subscribe to this.

Ginsberg is consistent in her decisions, and in that respect I give her the benefit of the doubt when it comes to whether she is being purely political, or adhering to her honest opinions as to the intention of the document itself.

If we should be concerned about the jurisprudence of any one justice, it should be Breyer, who came out this week with some very interesting comments as to why or why not the SCOTUS should take certain cases (take a look at it; it inferred that the high court should be sensitive to politics- a very bad idea imo).

CitadelGrad wrote:

Chizzang wrote:
You seem pretty emotional about it...
I'm going to stick with my original assessment

No. I don't really have emotions.

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"

youngterrier wrote: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"

An activist judge is any judge that doesn't rule the way you want them to.

BlueHen86 wrote:

youngterrier wrote: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"

An activist judge is any judge that doesn't rule the way you want them to.

Exactly. And people forget that we've amended the constitution so we are going to interpret the constitution and govern differently than the founders intended because of that.

the 14th amendment is just a bitch now isn't it?

Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the new Mother Of Christ. Jewish, a mom.

youngterrier wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
An activist judge is any judge that doesn't rule the way you want them to.

Exactly. And people forget that we've amended the constitution so we are going to interpret the constitution and govern differently than the founders intended because of that.

the 14th amendment is just a bitch now isn't it?

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.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the new Mother Of Christ. Jewish, a mom.

Madonna Ginsburg?

Sounds like a really bad singer.

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.