• 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!

If you were a Justice on the Supreme Court, which method of interpretation would you prefer?

If you were a Justice on the Supreme Court, which method of interpretation would you prefer?

  • 1. For Conservatives - Textualism

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • 2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • 3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • 4. For Conservatives - Natural Law

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • 5. For Progressives - Textualism

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 6. For Progressives - Intentionalism

    Votes: 4 16.0%

  • 7. For Progressives - Pragmatist

    Votes: 6 24.0%

  • 8. For Progressives - Natural Law

    Votes: 1 4.0%
  • Total voters
    25
TurtleDude said:
WTF is that

you mean A Scalia? Sam Alito is still on the court
Click to expand...

Glad I wasn't the only one confused.

Antonin is the first name of Antonin Scalia, who is dead but wasn't murdered.

Alito is the last name of Samuel Alito, who is not dead and also wasn't murdered.

I have no clue who Antonin Alito is, nor am I aware of any recent SCOTUS justice that was murdered.

The whole post made zero sense.
 
Predominantly a Texualist, with a bit of Internationalism guiding the way. Probably 75/25. Thus I voted Textualism.
 
Zyphlin said:
Glad I wasn't the only one confused.

Antonin is the first name of Antonin Scalia, who is dead but wasn't murdered.

Alito is the last name of Samuel Alito, who is not dead and also wasn't murdered.

I have no clue who Antonin Alito is, nor am I aware of any recent SCOTUS justice that was murdered.

The whole post made zero sense.
Click to expand...

I think he later said he meant Scalia. some CT claim Scalia was murdered by Democrat operatives. Seriously, some have said that :roll:
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
So you propose we have an individual amendment for every individual one of the thousands of different things that are covered by the spirit, but unforeseen by the word, of the Constitution, rather than just letting the SCOTUS actually rule on their own cases.

Hell, what's the point of bills or having a SCOTUS at all, at that point? Let's just have thousands of new amendments that only apply to one tiny microcosm of larger American society and government.

Gee, no way that could be a logistical nightmare at all. :lol:
Click to expand...

I very much doubt he is proposing amendments for "thousands of different things", because the Constitution itself only addresses a limited number of "things" (duties and liberty protections) . I imagine, like myself, he believes that where the Constitution speaks X, if the civis wishes it said Y, then one goes through the amendment process.

What's the point of saying that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land if Congress or Scotus ignores it's provisions?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
What do you think their job is Apdst?
Click to expand...

To read a law and say, "Does this match what The Constitution says?".

Their job isn't to change the meaning of the text to match a law they agree with.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
So you propose we have an individual amendment for every individual one of the thousands of different things that are covered by the spirit, but unforeseen by the word, of the Constitution, rather than just letting the SCOTUS actually rule on their own cases.

Hell, what's the point of bills or having a SCOTUS at all, at that point? Let's just have thousands of new amendments that only apply to one tiny microcosm of larger American society and government.

Gee, no way that could be a logistical nightmare at all. :lol:
Click to expand...

I never said anything about thousands of amendments.
 
Zyphlin said:
Predominantly a Texualist, with a bit of Internationalism guiding the way. Probably 75/25. Thus I voted Textualism.
Click to expand...

Could you please elaborate on what you mean by interpreting the Constitution using Internationalism?
 
LesGovt said:
Could you please elaborate on what you mean by interpreting the Constitution using Internationalism?
Click to expand...

Spellcheck auto-correct due to "Intentionalism" not being a word, so it changed it to internationalism.

IE...when reading the first amendment in a textual sense, I'd use a bit of intentionalism to recognize that the intent behind the term "speech" was not limited to the physical act of vocalizing with one's mouth but via other forms of expression as well.
 
LesGovt said:
I am talking about changing the Constitution. Congress, state legislatures, ballot initiatives, ballot referendums, and recalls should never be used to change the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The constitution does not have to be changed for every little thing
 
Zyphlin said:
Spellcheck auto-correct due to "Intentionalism" not being a word, so it changed it to internationalism.

IE...when reading the first amendment in a textual sense, I'd use a bit of intentionalism to recognize that the intent behind the term "speech" was not limited to the physical act of vocalizing with one's mouth but via other forms of expression as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. Much appreciated.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The constitution does not have to be changed for every little thing
Click to expand...

Of course not. If the Constitution doesn't provide authority to the Federal Government, the state legislatures can handle it.
 
LesGovt said:
1. For Conservatives - Textualism
2. For Conservatives - Intentionalism
3. For Conservatives - Pragmatist
4. For Conservatives - Natural Law
5. For Progressives - Textualism
6. For Progressives - Intentionalism
7. For Progressives - Pragmatist
8. For Progressives - Natural Law
Click to expand...

I'm neither conservative or progressive so I can't select a poll choice. That said textualism.
 
LesGovt said:
Hmmmm. I did not think the Constitution was done by the legislature and I thought it was the supreme law of the country. Are you sticking to your statements or do you wish to alter them?
Click to expand...

You thought wrong. The Constitution was in fact written by the legislature. It was ratified by the States. Yes I am sticking to my statements and have no intention of altering them.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Aberration said:
You thought wrong. The Constitution was in fact written by the legislature. It was ratified by the States. Yes I am sticking to my statements and have no intention of altering them.
Click to expand...

I thought it was written by a convention that had been approved by the Congress, but was not part of Congress.
 
Gaius46 said:
I'm neither conservative or progressive so I can't select a poll choice. That said textualism.
Click to expand...

They only give us eight selections and to include 4 types times 3 parties, it just could not be done. Sorry. Thanks for your response.
 
LesGovt said:
I thought it was written by a convention that had been approved by the Congress, but was not part of Congress.
Click to expand...

The Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the states before it could go into effect and then it only applied to the states that ratified it. It took something like 6 months to get to 9 and 2 years before all 13 original colonies ratified it.

Congress decided to have a Constitutional convention and then once the new constitution was drawn held meetings to decide whether to put the constitution forward for ratification since the convention overstepped its authority - they were to amend the articles not create a new government. Congress dropped the matter which then led to the beginning of the ratification process.
 
LesGovt said:
They only give us eight selections and to include 4 types times 3 parties, it just could not be done. Sorry. Thanks for your response.
Click to expand...

Np. Comes with the territory when you're a libertarian.
 
Redress said:
Just bumping this up a bit to ask a followup question if I may. Today SCOTUS heard arguments. Here is the SCOTUSBlog article on the arguments: Argument analysis: An epic day for employers in arbitration case? - SCOTUSblog. Quote of the part applicable to what I want to ask about:



So, you have two laws, both apply, but they are mutually exclusive(or seem so). So how exactly do you base your ruling?
Click to expand...

This conflict stems from the direct results of federal laws that should have never passed muster.

According to the constitution one is entitled to due process period for any legal matter.
how that process is done is up to the parties involved.

I don't see how an employer can force someone to give up their right to a trial.
arbitration is similar to a trial but without a jury.

however arbitration carries risk though but it saves the company millions in legal fees on appeals.
 
Gaius46 said:
The Constitution had to be ratified by 9 of the states before it could go into effect and then it only applied to the states that ratified it. It took something like 6 months to get to 9 and 2 years before all 13 original colonies ratified it.

Congress decided to have a Constitutional convention and then once the new constitution was drawn held meetings to decide whether to put the constitution forward for ratification since the convention overstepped its authority - they were to amend the articles not create a new government. Congress dropped the matter which then led to the beginning of the ratification process.
Click to expand...

I believe my statement has not been refuted and Aberration is still incorrect.

I don't disagree with what you have just said. You and I probably picking over small and not too important of details. First, the Continental Congress approved the convention. Second. the states chose their delegates. Of 55 delegates who attended the Convention at one time or another, only 40 had served in the Continental Congress. Once the Convention finalized the document, the Continental Congress did not resolve the issue over the fact that the Convention was to only Amend the Articles of Confederation, so the state legislatures elected delegates to attend their state ratifying conventions. These state conventions had some members who were not members of the state legislature nor the Continental Congress. The Conventions ratified the Constitution and not the legislature.
 
Under intentional-ism and natural law the Constitution means whatever you want it to mean. Only textual interpretation limits what the Constitution can mean. Be careful what you wish for.......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom