Is Garland's goose cooked?

[fskimospy]

This also doesn't get into the fact that frequently the people who wrote the constitution and the amendments disagreed on what they meant exactly. Which person's side do you take?

 

[Brainonska511]

This also doesn't get into the fact that frequently the people who wrote the constitution and the amendments disagreed on what they meant exactly. Which person's side do you take?

Obviously, whatever side fits the narrative your pushing.

 

[PokerGuy]

Go read his actual opinions on those two cases and come back and say he's not a hypocrite. He fliped his own reasoning on its head when it was convenient.

There are plenty more where that came from too. For example he said that when it came to peyote use that people could not defy generally applicable laws based on their religious beliefs. Then when it came to birth control he said that generally applicable laws (even ones bending over backwards to accommodate religious beliefs) were too restrictive and must be struck down.

Hypocrite, plain as day.

So you provide that as an example of his hypocrisy, but it's not hypocritical at all. His reasoning is completely consistent and logical. You just don't like the conclusion.

The idea that the constitution in a modern world can be interpreted and used in modern society based on the views of people dead for multiple centuries is a ridiculous fantasy. It was written with the explicit purpose of being ambiguous and open to interpretation as are all common law systems.

If you disagree by all means explain to me how the drafters of the fourth amendment viewed its applicability to information gained from thermal imaging spy satellites. Clearly we should use their views on these sky demons because we wouldn't want to say that times have changed.

What the 'strict constitutionalist' perspective really does is ask judges to abandon their own reason and replace it with a judicial ouija board where they try and divine the preferences of people who have been dead for two centuries.

Translation: The constitution only means something when we want it to, otherwise we should just ignore it as it is 200+ years old and meaningless in the context of today's society.

I reject your premise. I think the constitution means something even if I don't always like the outcome, and it is just as relevant now as it was then. I want justices who will view the constitution the way it was intended, not based on whatever way the wind blows today or what is popular. There are obviously different views on how something might have been intended, which is why you have a court anyway -- if everything was black and white there would be no need for a court.

 

[fskimospy]

So you provide that as an example of his hypocrisy, but it's not hypocritical at all. His reasoning is completely consistent and logical. You just don't like the conclusion.

They are both obvious examples of his hypocrisy, which is why I told you to go read the two opinions (which I'm certain you did not do). His reasoning for upholding DOMA was that we should trust in the legislature's decisions as to what laws should be. His reasoning for striking down parts of the voting rights act was that the legislature couldn't be trusted to do the right thing.

Translation: The constitution only means something when we want it to, otherwise we should just ignore it as it is 200+ years old and meaningless in the context of today's society.

Nope, the constitution always means something, just not what you want it to mean. The Constitution was created with clauses that were deliberately vague in order to permit judicial interpretation and this fact is inescapable.

I reject your premise. I think the constitution means something even if I don't always like the outcome, and it is just as relevant now as it was then. I want justices who will view the constitution the way it was intended, not based on whatever way the wind blows today or what is popular.

I can't help but notice you rejected my premise while cutting out the part of my post that showed why your premise was ridiculous. There was no intent in the Constitution to make a determination on whether or not thermal searches by satellite were unreasonable or not because such a question didn't even exist. Saying you want judges to make rulings on satellite searches based on the views of people who never even imagined such a thing was possible is transparently stupid.

There are obviously different views on how something might have been intended, which is why you have a court anyway -- if everything was black and white there would be no need for a court.

Ah, so now instead of interpreting what they think the Constitution says you want them to go interpret what at least 55 men with wildly differing opinions collectively thought more than two centuries ago. That seems much better.

 

[Pens1566]

I have no idea what his confirmation vote then was, nor do I care because it is not relevant. I said he should not be nominated again, and he won't be. Whatever the vote was for him on a lower court doesn't matter.

Of course it's relevant. He was confirmed 76-23 in a republican controlled senate, with many of the same senators present today voting in favor of confirmation. Your only argument is that as a centrist nominated by the kenyan fascist muslim socialist, he is now somehow different.