View Poll Results: Should the Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

Voters
58. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    30 51.72%
  • No

    26 44.83%
  • I don't know

    2 3.45%
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 107

Thread: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

  1. #91
    Pragmatic Idealist
    upsideguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rocky Mtn. High
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    10,054

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    No, I don't think she will interpret "The Constitution" as written, so that pretty much disqualifies her from my pool of applicants.
    So you must be really outraged with the Roberts court as a whole then. That Citizen's United case must have put 5 justices on your personal list of judges you would like to see off the court.

  2. #92
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Says the guy wearing the stripes of a party who has had a history of segregation and slavery.
    Yeah except I don't make any claim to derive my political views from those of segregationist Democrats. Or even modern Democrats, for that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Legal scholars don't hold a candle to the guys who actually wrote the document.
    I've already explained this, if my political ideology is derived from the writers of the document, then why are you so surprised?
    And I've already explained this. The writers of the document were not a monolithic entity with a single political ideology. Who exactly are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Except I'm not telling anyone to follow a specific religion.
    Yes you are. You are telling people to follow the religion of constitutional originalism. Or more accurately, you're telling people to follow the religion of what modern conservative/libertarians BELIEVE is constitutional originalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    I'm asking people to follow the law as written.
    Which means, don't make me participate in egalitarian, fantasy, social programs that don't work.
    Don't ban things based on your morality, as long as I'm not hurting anyone.
    That kind of thing.
    Yep, just like Pat Robertson is only asking people to follow the Bible as written. Obviously his is the only "correct" interpretation, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid, dishonest, or evil. Clearly determining the "correct" interpretation is easy, even though so many intelligent people disagree about it...but you've pretty much figured it out.

    What makes you so certain that YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is so obviously correct?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    They all agreed on the limitations set out in The Constitution.
    That's why they signed it.
    The Constitution was a compromise, not something that every Founding Father was completely behind. And what makes you think that they agreed how to interpret the Constitution even when it was written?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    It makes no difference.
    What should be changed?
    Why?
    You mean why shouldn't we govern ourselves the same way that people governed themselves 200 years ago in an agrarian society, that may as well have been a totally alien country? If you have to ask, I'm afraid no answer I give you can make you understand. Suffice it to say that modern America has a lot more in common with modern Europe than it does with 18th century America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    You do know that The Constitution explicit limits the feds but not necessarily the states, which are free to do a lot of whatever they want.
    You seem to want national conformity.
    In certain areas, yes.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  3. #93
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yeah except I don't make any claim to derive my political views from those of segregationist Democrats. Or even modern Democrats, for that matter.
    Does it matter?
    You perfectly fine using it to attempt to paint me as some sort of of racist, sexist bigot.

    Turn about is fair play.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    And I've already explained this. The writers of the document were not a monolithic entity with a single political ideology. Who exactly are you talking about?
    All of them, they all agreed to the compromise.
    Which turned out to be pretty damn good.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yes you are. You are telling people to follow the religion of constitutional originalism. Or more accurately, you're telling people to follow the religion of what modern conservative/libertarians BELIEVE is constitutional originalism.
    Nope.
    I'm telling people that if they want to change the law, they need to do so in the prescribed manner.
    Not make crap up out of thin air.

    Big difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Yep, just like Pat Robertson is only asking people to follow the Bible as written. Obviously his is the only "correct" interpretation, and anyone who disagrees is either stupid, dishonest, or evil. Clearly determining the "correct" interpretation is easy, even though so many intelligent people disagree about it...but you've pretty much figured it out.
    Except the Bible has gone through multiple variations and revisions.
    Few, if any original texts of the bible exist, not to mention that it was translated from another language with high amounts of symbolic meaning.

    Now The Constitution is written in English, dated English but it is none the less.
    It uses all the common sentence structures and is the original document.
    No I'm not making crap up, I'm reading what is right in front of my face.

    It basically boils down to you and others like yourself, making excuses to not follow the law, in order to get your pet legislation enacted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    What makes you so certain that YOUR interpretation of the Constitution is so obviously correct?
    It is written in English and I can read English.
    Not that difficult.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The Constitution was a compromise, not something that every Founding Father was completely behind. And what makes you think that they agreed how to interpret the Constitution even when it was written?
    If they signed it they authorized it as law.
    I happen to agree with the compromise.

    Laws have fixed meanings, they are not meant to flip and flop whenever it's convenient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    You mean why shouldn't we govern ourselves the same way that people governed themselves 200 years ago in an agrarian society, that may as well have been a totally alien country? If you have to ask, I'm afraid no answer I give you can make you understand. Suffice it to say that modern America has a lot more in common with modern Europe than it does with 18th century America.
    A non answer.
    What should be changed and why?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  4. #94
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Does it matter?
    You perfectly fine using it to attempt to paint me as some sort of of racist, sexist bigot.

    Turn about is fair play.
    I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. I don't think I've ever said anything that could be construed in that way. I said that your statement that you derive your political views from theirs is obviously not true since (I'm assuming) you DON'T support things like racism or misogyny. What you REALLY mean is that you support the Founding Fathers' political views when you want to, and you don't support them when you don't want to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    All of them, they all agreed to the compromise.
    Which turned out to be pretty damn good.
    They all agreed to affix their name to the text on a piece of paper. There is no indication that they agreed on how that piece of paper should be interpreted, even at the time they ratified it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Nope.
    I'm telling people that if they want to change the law, they need to do so in the prescribed manner.
    Not make crap up out of thin air.
    Why? The United States is a common law country; our legal system has ALWAYS been guided by precedent, tradition, and interpretation, rather than by passing a new law to address every conceivable situation. This is true now, it was true when the Constitution was written, and it was true when we were British colonies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Except the Bible has gone through multiple variations and revisions.
    Few, if any original texts of the bible exist, not to mention that it was translated from another language with high amounts of symbolic meaning.

    Now The Constitution is written in English, dated English but it is none the less.
    It uses all the common sentence structures and is the original document.
    No I'm not making crap up, I'm reading what is right in front of my face.

    It basically boils down to you and others like yourself, making excuses to not follow the law, in order to get your pet legislation enacted.
    But basically what you're saying boils down to the same thing that Pat Robertson is saying: You know the one true way to interpret your sacred document, because it's extremely obvious. And anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is just ignoring the obvious truth because they're stupid, dishonest, or evil...not because there's any complex thinking required or legitimate difference of opinion involved here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    It is written in English and I can read English.
    Not that difficult.
    I'm pretty sure that all of the Supreme Court Justices are literate as well. Yet none of them share your fundamentalist views. So let me make sure I understand you correctly here: You're saying that the Supreme Court knows fully well the obvious truth of your interpretation of the Constitution...but they choose to ignore it for their own political purposes. Right?

    Again, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your OWN political views so closely match the one true interpretation of the Constitution. Nope, clearly YOU are interpreting "correctly," and they're all just interpreting it based on their own political views.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    If they signed it they authorized it as law.
    I happen to agree with the compromise.

    Laws have fixed meanings, they are not meant to flip and flop whenever it's convenient.
    Laws have ALWAYS evolved in meaning over time, and have been developed by judges as well as by legislators. This is the whole basis of a common law legal system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    A non answer.
    What should be changed and why?
    Are you really interested in discussing what I think should be changed in our current constitution? That sounds like an entirely different topic from this thread.
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-04-10 at 02:52 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  5. #95
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. I don't think I've ever said anything that could be construed in that way. I said that your statement that you derive your political views from theirs is obviously not true since (I'm assuming) you DON'T support things like racism or misogyny. What you REALLY mean is that you support the Founding Fathers' political views when you want to, and you don't support them when you don't want to.
    Your initial statement was a juvenile attempt at character assassination.
    You know damned well that I don't support those things, yet you just had to go drag out the tired and old "well they believed in slavery" crap ass argument.

    Move on and don't use it, you're essentially treading in to Godwin territory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    They all agreed to affix their name to the text on a piece of paper. There is no indication that they agreed on how that piece of paper should be interpreted, even at the time they ratified it.
    They added the amending process, that is pretty clear to me that any changes that needed to be made, should be done that way.

    A little later did it only have to be "interpreted" because of federal power grabs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Why? The United States is a common law country; our legal system has ALWAYS been guided by precedent, tradition, and interpretation, rather than by passing a new law to address every conceivable situation. This is true now, it was true when the Constitution was written, and it was true when we were British colonies.
    Our system is not solely based on common law.
    Laws exist to define the borders in which citizens and the government are restricted to.

    Why are you so in favor of giving the government looser boundaries?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    But basically what you're saying boils down to the same thing that Pat Robertson is saying: You know the one true way to interpret your sacred document, because it's extremely obvious. And anyone who disagrees with your interpretation is just ignoring the obvious truth because they're stupid, dishonest, or evil...not because there's any complex thinking required or legitimate difference of opinion involved here.
    No I'm not, we aren't interpreting Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese etc.
    We are reading a document in English, with plenty of follow up information defining exactly what the statutes in The Constitution relate to.

    Have a problem with a specific meaning, take a wag at the Federalist papers.
    Answer is delivered.

    Want to change something, amend the damn thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    I'm pretty sure that all of the Supreme Court Justices are literate as well. Yet none of them share your fundamentalist views. So let me make sure I understand you correctly here: You're saying that the Supreme Court knows fully well the obvious truth of your interpretation of the Constitution...but they choose to ignore it for their own political purposes. Right?
    They interpret based on the social bias, political bias and many other things.

    How else could 4 justices come to the conclusion, that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant for individuals?
    How could the 5 that agreed, come to the conclusion that local restrictions can still be applied, even though it says "shall not be infringed?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Again, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that your OWN political views so closely match the one true interpretation of the Constitution. Nope, clearly YOU are interpreting "correctly," and they're all just interpreting it based on their own political views.
    I'm reading what it says.
    I don't complicate things by adding all this other nonsense that it should be "interpreted" as if it were written in a foreign, symbolic language.

    If it were meant to be interpreted in such a way, they wouldn't have added the option of amending it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Laws have ALWAYS evolved in meaning over time, and have been developed by judges as well as by legislators. This is the whole basis of a common law legal system.
    Not all laws and not in all situations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Are you really interested in discussing what I think should be changed in our current constitution? That sounds like an entirely different topic from this thread.
    You said it needed to be adaptable to now.
    I'm trying to figure out exactly what needs to be adapted, in your view.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  6. #96
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    They interpret based on the social bias, political bias and many other things.

    How else could 4 justices come to the conclusion, that the 2nd amendment wasn't meant for individuals? [/quote]
    What was the rationale they gave in their dissenting opinion?

    How could the 5 that agreed, come to the conclusion that local restrictions can still be applied, even though it says "shall not be infringed?"
    Again, what did they say in their opinion? If you want to know the answer to these questions, it's not hard to find.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  7. #97
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Your initial statement was a juvenile attempt at character assassination.
    You know damned well that I don't support those things, yet you just had to go drag out the tired and old "well they believed in slavery" crap ass argument.
    I didn't say that YOU supported slavery, I said that THEY did, and therefore you DON'T derive your political views from theirs. I think my meaning was pretty obvious. After all, it was written in English and we both speak English. Surely you should have no problem interpreting MY words correctly (especially after it's already been explained to you), given your expertise in interpreting the Constitution correctly where just about every Supreme Court Justice in the last 200 years has failed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    They added the amending process, that is pretty clear to me that any changes that needed to be made, should be done that way.
    A) Why? Just because they created one process doesn't mean it has to be used for everything.
    B) Even if that is what they intended, this is still based on the premise that everyone shares your view that what the Founding Fathers would have wanted is the most important thing.
    C) Again, they were not a monolithic entity. It is hardly inconceivable that some might have only wanted to use the amendment process whereas others might be open to looser interpretations.
    D) From a practical standpoint, the amendment process is simply too cumbersome. Even if it's what they intended, they either grossly miscalculated how difficult it would be, or they simply weren't planning for a continental nation made up of 50 states.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    A little later did it only have to be "interpreted" because of federal power grabs.
    The Constitution has been interpreted ever since the ink was still wet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    Our system is not solely based on common law.
    Laws exist to define the borders in which citizens and the government are restricted to.

    Why are you so in favor of giving the government looser boundaries?
    Because (and I know this is inconceivable to you) some of us simply don't share your view that the government can't do anything right and that society functions best when government doesn't do anything. But again, this is a separate topic for another thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    No I'm not, we aren't interpreting Arabic, Hebrew, Chinese, Japanese etc.
    We are reading a document in English, with plenty of follow up information defining exactly what the statutes in The Constitution relate to.

    Have a problem with a specific meaning, take a wag at the Federalist papers.
    Answer is delivered.
    Where in the Constitution does it say to consult the Federalist Papers for the correct interpretation? Are you sure you aren't perhaps interpreting something that isn't there? The Founding Fathers could have easily mentioned that in the Constitution if that's how they actually wanted it to be interpreted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    They interpret based on the social bias, political bias and many other things.
    But of course, your own interpretations have none of that bias. They're the correct view.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    I'm reading what it says.
    I don't complicate things by adding all this other nonsense that it should be "interpreted" as if it were written in a foreign, symbolic language.
    OK, take a crack at this passage. Tell me how I should interpret this from a constitutional fundamentalist perspective:

    The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
    Article II repeatedly refers to the president as "he." Presumably the Founding Fathers (at least some of them) meant the "he" literally, since they did not even guarantee women the right to vote. No subsequent amendments have made it clear that women are allowed to serve as president. So in your expert opinion, is a woman constitutionally eligible to serve as president? And if so, the enumerated powers of the president also refers to "he." So even if a woman is able to serve as president, is she able to exercise these powers?

    (And no, I'm not calling YOU a misogynist so don't even go there. )

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    If it were meant to be interpreted in such a way, they wouldn't have added the option of amending it.
    Why? Just because YOU might not have done it that way doesn't mean that THEY wouldn't have. (And again, this is premised on the assumption that I care how they "meant" for it to be interpreted, which you seem to take as a given.)

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla
    You said it needed to be adaptable to now.
    I'm trying to figure out exactly what needs to be adapted, in your view.
    I'm not sure what the point of this exercise is. Any constitutional change I suggest, you'll either respond with "That's not a legitimate function of government" or "That's already clearly enumerated in Article Z, Section Y, just as the Founders obviously would have wanted, because I say it is." So do we really need to go through the motions of this exercise?
    Last edited by Kandahar; 07-04-10 at 04:13 AM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #98
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    One point I don't really see from people of HG's philosophy is the role of the Supreme Court. The constitution essentially lets the Supreme Court be the finer arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. The constitution, legally, means what the SC says it means.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

  9. #99
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by the makeout hobo View Post
    One point I don't really see from people of HG's philosophy is the role of the Supreme Court. The constitution essentially lets the Supreme Court be the finer arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. The constitution, legally, means what the SC says it means.
    I don't agree with that.

    If the Supreme Court clearly contradicts the wording, they are wrong and it shouldn't be supported.

    As an example, if they said you don't have freedom of religion, would you believe that was what the original law was meant to say?
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  10. #100
    Rockin' In The Free World
    the makeout hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Last Seen
    04-24-14 @ 06:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    7,102

    Re: Should The Senate Confirm Elena Kagan

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    I don't agree with that.

    If the Supreme Court clearly contradicts the wording, they are wrong and it shouldn't be supported.

    As an example, if they said you don't have freedom of religion, would you believe that was what the original law was meant to say?
    Show me where the Constitution disagrees with me.
    The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •