• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I think anyone who thinks like this should not be allowed to serve as a judge,lawyer let alone a professor at some university to teach law.


FOXNews.com - Obama 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World

Even his critics describe him as "brilliant," but President Obama's newly minted judicial nominee -- law professor Goodwin Liu -- will not have an easy time getting to the 9th Circuit bench.

At age 39, Liu has compiled an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, top grades at both Stanford University and Yale Law School and now law professor University of California, Berkeley.

Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That's prompting opponents to argue that Liu is "too far outside the mainstream" to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

"He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day," said the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
 
I think anyone who thinks like this should not be allowed to serve as a judge,lawyer let alone a professor at some university to teach law.


FOXNews.com - Obama 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World

Even his critics describe him as "brilliant," but President Obama's newly minted judicial nominee -- law professor Goodwin Liu -- will not have an easy time getting to the 9th Circuit bench.

At age 39, Liu has compiled an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, top grades at both Stanford University and Yale Law School and now law professor University of California, Berkeley.

Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That's prompting opponents to argue that Liu is "too far outside the mainstream" to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

"He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day," said the Senate Judiciary Committee's top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

I'm doubtful as to whether this is a good nominee. He's got a decent background, but what exactly makes him qualified to be on the 9th Circuit? He has no judicial experience, has been a lawyer for exactly 12 years, and seems like more of an activist than an impartial arbiter of the law. He testified before Congress to criticize Alito's qualifications based on some dubious arguments, and comes across as the kind of person who places ideology above consistency.
 
The founding fathers understood that the constitution would be and should be able to flex. It is the judges responsiblity to understand the spirit of the law and define it based on the situation.
 
The founding fathers understood that the constitution would be and should be able to flex. It is the judges responsiblity to understand the spirit of the law and define it based on the situation.

Isn't that accomplished by adding new amendments?
 
The founding fathers understood that the constitution would be and should be able to flex. It is the judges responsiblity to understand the spirit of the law and define it based on the situation.
Hahahahahahahah :doh
 
I'm doubtful as to whether this is a good nominee. He's got a decent background, but what exactly makes him qualified to be on the 9th Circuit? He has no judicial experience, has been a lawyer for exactly 12 years, and seems like more of an activist than an impartial arbiter of the law. He testified before Congress to criticize Alito's qualifications based on some dubious arguments, and comes across as the kind of person who places ideology above consistency.

Considering the 9th circuit's record, he would probably be perfect.
 
Well, I agree that the Constitution should flux to mold with changes in society and so forth to some degree.

But that's up to Congress, not judges.

If Liu feels this way and believes it's in his power then why bother letting go of the dingdong who's in the grip of the 9th circuit now? Just keep him around.
 
Wow, Conservative minded people don't like a nominee who believes in a "Living Document" interpretation of the Constitution. I'm so surprised. :roll:

Oxymoron, you can confuse me as always.
 
Last edited:
NO new amendments add laws to be defined.
A law by itself does not always create the conditions envisioned by their creation. Thus the Court defines the law, so that it gells with the reality of society.

In the broadest sense, most people would agree with this. The problem is when judges use the text as a jumping-off point to engage in lawmaking rather than interpreting the text based on its language, the unambiguous intent of the lawmakers, and the context in which it was passed.
 
What do you mean? How have I confused you?

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives courts the power of judicial review. The courts gave themselves that power in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The courts usurped more power than the Constitution granted them and without a Constitutional Amendment. Arguably some of the founders wanted the courts to have the power of judicial review, but it was never explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, the typical Conservative argument is that the Supreme Court has been acting outside its Constitutional authority for over 200 years since the Constitution should be considered a fixed document where alterations should only come from amendments.
 
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives courts the power of judicial review. The courts gave themselves that power in the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803. The courts usurped more power than the Constitution granted them and without a Constitutional Amendment. Arguably some of the founders wanted the courts to have the power of judicial review, but it was never explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Therefore, the typical Conservative argument is that the Supreme Court has been acting outside its Constitutional authority for over 200 years since the Constitution should be considered a fixed document where alterations should only come from amendments.

Where are you getting that this is the "typical" conservative argument? There are few if any serious scholars who believe that judicial review is unconstitutional as a whole, as opposed to those who merely quibble about the scope and rationale.

The "typical" conservative argument is that some judges deviate too far from the court's constitutional role in interpreting the law and encroach on the legislature's role in making the law.
 
Yeah those dang activist judges and their Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia. The constitution means what I say it means!
 
I can't for the life of me understand how people interpret Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean, flexible guidelines.

If you want to change something with in The Constitution there is a procedural process, it's called amending.
Now they would of never added that if, the Rules of the Constitution were to never be amended or the rules were flexible guidelines.

The argument that The Constitution was meant to be a living document is only in reference to the amending process.
All other references that the clear cut rules, are some how guidelines, is dubious because of the specific amending process.

You don't like whats in The Constitution, amend it.
Otherwise, get off this banter about "living document."

Your argument is totally invalid based on procedure and the construction of the document itself.
 
Last edited:
Yeah those dang activist judges and their Brown v. Board and Loving v. Virginia. The constitution means what I say it means!

I'm not sure what you're responding to or why you think that a generic reference to either of those cases indicates anything about the validity of competing methods of constitutional interpretation. Neither one of the policies that were sought in those cases needed to be achieved in the way that they were.

I can't for the life of me understand how people interpret Constitution and Bill of Rights to mean, flexible guidelines.

If you want to change something with in The Constitution there is a procedural process, it's called amending.
Now they would of never added that if, the Rules of the Constitution were to never be amended or the rules were flexible guidelines.

The argument that The Constitution was meant to be a living document is only in reference to the amending process.
All other references that the clear cut rules, are some how guidelines, is dubious because of the specific amending process.

You don't like whats in The Constitution, amend it.
Otherwise, get off this banter about "living document."

Your argument is totally invalid based on procedure and the construction of the document itself.

Another thing that people often do is confuse the Constitution with statutory law - e.g. arguing "well its hard to amend the Constitution, so we should be able to reinterpret it to do things like allow interracial marriage." That argument misses the point, because interracial marriage could have been protected without reference to the Constitution, even if that wasn't actually something that was envisioned by the framers.
 
Another thing that people often do is confuse the Constitution with statutory law - e.g. arguing "well its hard to amend the Constitution, so we should be able to reinterpret it to do things like allow interracial marriage." That argument misses the point, because interracial marriage could have been protected without reference to the Constitution, even if that wasn't actually something that was envisioned by the framers.

I don't see how this "living" nonsense is even allowed in the Judicial system.

The Constitution is a simple contract, very easy to understand.
All legal contracts (mutual agreement, adequate consideration, yada yada) are fixed to the terms.
They don't change just because someone thinks it should be different.

People are so crazy to willing let their protected assets within the contract be smudged for expediency of government.
 
The Ninth Circuit Court of shlameals is the most overturned Court in America hands down.

They have a history of getting it wrong and adding another radical is not going to help.

An amendment to the Constitution should make it illegal to attempt to change any decision made by the Supreme Court on any subject.

The Values our Nation were founded on should not be subject to change because some wacko liberals has some whim.

We have sen in the last 50 years so many attacks on our values, making acts so perverse they flu in the face any value system it's not funny.

Liberals are trying to destroy or Nation and they use threats, intimidation and claims of intolerance to force their unnatural ways of life and thinking on the rest of us.

Enough is enough.
 
If you want to be technical, the Constitution is an implicit contract. I never signed and I never agreed to abide by it. I was born into it, not unlike how a slave may be born into bondage, and if I want to change it, then I have to get enough of my fellow slaves to rebel against it and vote in representatives to amend it. The Constitution claims to guarantee me certain rights and protections in exchange for adhering to it, but tyrannical majorities are constantly imposing their will on me and whenever a court steps into protect those civil rights that the Constitution claims to guarantee me, the members of the tyrannical majority call it "judicial activism" because it doesn't coincide with their interpretation of the document and the motives of the founders who wrote it 300 years ago. The tyrannical majority also demand that a tyrannical majority be the only way that the Constitution be changed through the amendment process outlined in the Constitution itself.

So basically, unless you belong to the tyrannical majority, or form your own tyrannical majority, you have no rights, and the only system in place that can protect your individual rights, the court system, must adhere strictly to the document and the motives of the people who wrote it 300 years ago. Wow, what a convenient way to view the Constitution if you believe in preserving the status quo and are resistant to change. In other words, if you are Conservative.

Now let's look at the reality. Marbury v. Madison settled the dispute about whether courts had the power of constitutional interpretation. That means that since 1803, the Constitution has been a living document. It may not have been the intention of the founding fathers, but it is the reality that for most of America's history, the document has been living.
 
We have sen in the last 50 years so many attacks on our values, making acts so perverse they flu in the face any value system it's not funny.

Liberals are trying to destroy or Nation and they use threats, intimidation and claims of intolerance to force their unnatural ways of life and thinking on the rest of us.

Enough is enough.

Yeah, like when those damn black people wanted to ride in the front of buses, and drink from white only water fountains, and go to desegregated schools. How dare they challenge the values this country was founded on! Don't they know that the founders considered them only 3/5ths of a person! They totally deserved the firehoses and police dogs being turned on them!

And how about those abortion clinics? Truly, those people were shown the love of Jesus when those clinics were bombed and abortion doctors were murdered. How dare they impose their sick practice of abortion, even though abortions were practiced even during the founding father's time!

And the gays! They are the sickest group of all! To think that sodomy laws would be overturned and the government would no longer have a right knowing what goes on in the bedrooms of consenting adults! This a travesty to the values of this country!
 
If you want to be technical, the Constitution is an implicit contract. I never signed and I never agreed to abide by it. I was born into it, not unlike how a slave may be born into bondage, and if I want to change it, then I have to get enough of my fellow slaves to rebel against it and vote in representatives to amend it.

A failing of all forms of government.

The Constitution claims to guarantee me certain rights and protections in exchange for adhering to it, but tyrannical majorities are constantly imposing their will on me and whenever a court steps into protect those civil rights that the Constitution claims to guarantee me, the members of the tyrannical majority call it "judicial activism" because it doesn't coincide with their interpretation of the document and the motives of the founders who wrote it 300 years ago.

Bit of a generalization, don't you think? In any system where people disagree about what rights the Constitution protects, there will always be someone who complains about the evil tyrannical majority and how it's trampling his rights. Similarly, there will always be those who complains that the court's interpretations are contrary to the will and the intent of the majority. In your retelling of our world, your opinions are entirely reasonable while those of your opponents are tyrannical. You don't see anything hypocritical about that?

The tyrannical majority also demand that a tyrannical majority be the only way that the Constitution be changed through the amendment process outlined in the Constitution itself.

Unless you're characterizing every majority as a "tyrannical" majority, I don't know where you're getting this. If you do think that every majority is tyrannical, then the word has lost all meaning.

So basically, unless you belong to the tyrannical majority, or form your own tyrannical majority, you have no rights, and the only system in place that can protect your individual rights, the court system, must adhere strictly to the document and the motives of the people who wrote it 300 years ago.

Yes, because the rights in the Constitution inure only to those who belong to the tyrannical majority. :roll:

Wow, what a convenient way to view the Constitution if you believe in preserving the status quo and are resistant to change. In other words, if you are Conservative.

If you automatically attribute malicious motives to those who view things differently than you, then why would you expect anything better?

Now let's look at the reality. Marbury v. Madison settled the dispute about whether courts had the power of constitutional interpretation. That means that since 1803, the Constitution has been a living document.

No, that's not at all what Marbury said. The concept of judicial review is entirely distinct from the concept of a living document.

It may not have been the intention of the founding fathers, but it is the reality that for most of America's history, the document has been living.

Again, this is completely false. The very concept of the concept as a living document didn't even come into existence until around 80 years ago.
 
The founding fathers understood that the constitution would be and should be able to flex. It is the judges responsiblity to understand the spirit of the law and define it based on the situation.

Completely true. Hamilton said it best:
Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.
 
Completely true. Hamilton said it best:

I think that quote is actually saying the exact opposite: His point is that the Constitution is by its nature permanent and inflexible, so it should be drafted broadly so as to allow a wide range of laws to fit within its scope. It's precisely because the meaning of the Constitution does not change to fit the contemporary views of society that it should consist of general provisions.
 
I think that quote is actually saying the exact opposite: His point is that the Constitution is by its nature permanent and inflexible, so it should be drafted broadly so as to allow a wide range of laws to fit within its scope. It's precisely because the meaning of the Constitution does not change to fit the contemporary views of society that it should consist of general provisions.

No, the opposite is true. What the quote represents is Hamilton's position that the Constitution should only have in it general provisions. Since society changes, these general provisions can be used to interpret the changing societial needs.
 
Last edited:
No, the opposite is true. What the quote represents is Hamilton's position that the Constitution should only have in it general provisions. Since society changes, these general provisions can be used to interpret the changing societial needs.

What it means is that a constitution must not be ultra specific.

Like it saying a right to free speech instead of speech by word of mouth or a printing press.
The right to bear arms instead of the right to bear flintlock muskets and bladed weapons.

It's provisions cover future technological developments and thus there is no need to update those specific sections, for the most part.

A constitution that is not grounded, is nothing at all.
If it is so flexible, who is to decide when and where that flexibility it can apply?
Can free speech be clamped down on because a person in power thinks society shouldn't have that wide option?

I do not think you should enable someone to smudge your contractual assets and you get nothing in return.
It's a bad deal for you and a good deal for them.
 
Back
Top Bottom