EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7265
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Ayaz2810
United States2763 Posts
| ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
| ||
|
Mercy13
United States718 Posts
On April 05 2017 10:24 Danglars wrote: Lol cite what you're talking about and its applicability, I'm lost. He's decided many times to take the writing over his personal views, going so far as to state that you're likely a bad judge if you agree with the results of all the judgements you've written. Originalism & Textualism are his claims to fame. Well he did write a whole book arguing that courts should consider striking down assisted suicide laws because of "the recognition of human life as a fundamental good." That is not an Originalist or Textualist viewpoint. Edit: Out of curiosity, do you think Brown v. Board of Education was decided correctly? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 05 2017 10:45 Mercy13 wrote: Well he did write a whole book arguing that courts should consider striking down assisted suicide laws because of "the recognition of human life as a fundamental good." That is not an Originalist or Textualist viewpoint. Edit: Out of curiosity, do you think Brown v. Board of Education was decided correctly? If the case involves the preservation of human life against destruction, maybe then I'll see broad deviations from originalism and textualism. The life and death issue, I admit, goes against what I said. I hope to eventually read his book if I can ever make it through my current book list. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 05 2017 10:09 Danglars wrote: Rewriting statutes as they see fit. I'm glad we have one more on the Supreme Court willing to read statues as written. I haven't heard about gorsuch being approved, so it doesn't seem you have one more yet, unless I missed something. at any rate, I find the canard questionable; as if republicans actually favor textualism, they favor whatever serves their interest and beliefs and goals at the time. They don't actually favor straightforward literal interpretation of statues as written. like all (most) politicians, they favor whichever doctrine supports whatever they're trying to do. came upon an interesting article on the topic, haven't read it thoroughly or vetted it yet though, but it looks to have a fairly solid backing at least, so a rebuttal would not be trivial. might be worth a read/skim at some point. http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/27/14747562/originalism-gorsuch-scalia-brown-supreme-court the tldr seems to be calling bs on the originalist claims. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 05 2017 11:21 zlefin wrote: I haven't heard about gorsuch being approved, so it doesn't seem you have one more yet, unless I missed something. at any rate, I find the canard questionable; as if republicans actually favor textualism, they favor whatever serves their interest and beliefs and goals at the time. They don't actually favor straightforward literal interpretation of statues as written. like all (most) politicians, they favor whichever doctrine supports whatever they're trying to do. Do you favor the 7th circuits current interpretation of the civil rights act? came upon an interesting article on the topic, haven't read it thoroughly or vetted it yet though, but it looks to have a fairly solid backing at least, so a rebuttal would not be trivial. might be worth a read/skim at some point. http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/27/14747562/originalism-gorsuch-scalia-brown-supreme-court the tldr seems to be calling bs on the originalist claims. Let me know when you have done so. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
It seems difficult to construct any meaningful originalist statement about free speech of public television, social media or even bots and companies. And that change isn't really slowing down. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 05 2017 12:08 Nyxisto wrote: Apart from the point made in the article that people often use originalism as a kind of extra-weight to strengthen their argument for completely different reasons, I have serious problems understanding how it can be applied to many new emerging technologies or circumstances that didn't even exist at the time of writing and could not even be imagined. It seems difficult to construct any meaningful originalist statement about free speech of public television, social media or even bots and companies. And that change isn't really slowing down. That is because originalist arguments are sort of bullshit. Liberal or "living document" based arguments cite historical precedent just as often as originalist. Originalism is a way to apply conservative view points to law and then claim it is all based on the will of the founders and seeing the law as it is written. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On April 05 2017 11:36 Danglars wrote: Do you favor the 7th circuits current interpretation of the civil rights act? Let me know when you have done so. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. on the circuit court ruling, it's a tricky case going on very fine points of law, reading through it now. Many good points are raised by all the rulings, including a dissent. The dissent does make a blatant error on page 54 as a result of their own ignorance, but it would only nullify one of their objections, most of their objections would still stand. Reading part III of the dissent, I get the feeling the dissenters are not very familiar with the current state of science on how human sexuality works, and their lack of understanding is limiting their ability to rule soundly. Some other errors in the conclusions of the dissent imo, which seems to be misstating the actual majority decision's conclusions. (i.e. they're claiming the majority reached a conclusion that they did not do). overall I'm unimpressed by the dissent, which seems to have more errors in it, but it contains enough sound points still to be a defensible position. Mostly it comes down to a basic simple problem: humans learn. over time we've learned new things, and our understanding has changed and become deeper. Questions are raised which the original text never even envisioned or cognized upon, and a decision must be made on how to handle them. There is no clearly right or wrong decision, just a big question mark that needs addressing. Ideally, congress should reliably and promptly act to clarify such matters; sadly they do not do so, which leaves it to the judiciary to answer such things. the judiciary only decides because congress fails in its responsibility to keep the laws clear and up-to-date. A better mechanism to address such things is necessary. there's also a mishmash of rulings and precedents, many of which point in contradictory directions. With a system as large and complex as we have, it's often the case that multiple rules point in different directions, with no established standard mandating how to choose between them. as a note, I wonder what the political preferences were of the various judges making the decision. despite the claims by some conservatives, as well as the dissenting judges in this case decrying so-called "judicial activism", I wonder if a more consistent explanation is simply that all are reaching the conclusion they want, and finding some way to justify it afterwards, and that th econservatives engage in just as much "activism" and interpretation. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On April 05 2017 12:17 Plansix wrote: That is because originalist arguments are sort of bullshit. Liberal or "living document" based arguments cite historical precedent just as often as originalist. Originalism is a way to apply conservative view points to law and then claim it is all based on the will of the founders and seeing the law as it is written. Living document arguments are sort of bullshit too when they change all the time to suit whatever the current society wants them to be. I'm not blaming them for wanting the law to progress as society progress's but it does open the door constantly for negative progress as well as positive progress when the majority of your new decisions are simply reinterpretations that are convent for you. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 05 2017 12:35 Sermokala wrote: Living document arguments are sort of bullshit too when they change all the time to suit whatever the current society wants them to be. I'm not blaming them for wanting the law to progress as society progress's but it does open the door constantly for negative progress as well as positive progress when the majority of your new decisions are simply reinterpretations that are convent for you. They are both bullshit arguments, but I prefer the living document argument. At least it doesn't try to tap into some unearned authority through the founding fathers. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
The rule of law principle is that it should be possible to tell, before taking an action, whether that action is legal and what penalties one might face if it isn't, if one is sufficiently familiar with the law and the precedent. This isn't perfectly attainable in practice because some laws are ambiguous and haven't been clarified. However, it's a different matter if a law might mean something five years from now that it doesn't today, and your actions today will be judged by what it means in the future rather than what it means now. This is inherently unfair. Conversely, the closer the interpretations are to the plain meaning of the text, as understood at the time of the action if not at the time when it was written, the less people get screwed by reinterpretation. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35144 Posts
On April 05 2017 10:37 Ayaz2810 wrote: I'm actually pretty pissed now. This is a legit scoop. I wasn't around, what happened? | ||
|
Slaughter
United States20254 Posts
On April 05 2017 12:51 Buckyman wrote: The danger of a living document approach is that it erodes the rule of law principle. The rule of law principle is that it should be possible to tell, before taking an action, whether that action is legal and what penalties one might face if it isn't, if one is sufficiently familiar with the law and the precedent. This isn't perfectly attainable in practice because some laws are ambiguous and haven't been clarified. However, it's a different matter if a law might mean something five years from now that it doesn't today, and your actions today will be judged by what it means in the future rather than what it means now. This is inherently unfair. Conversely, the closer the interpretations are to the plain meaning of the text, as understood at the time of the action if not at the time when it was written, the less people get screwed by reinterpretation. We already change laws, abolish laws, create new laws all the time though and people argue all the time about interpretation of those laws. I don't see how the constitution being a living document capable of being updated or interpreted differently in the future should erode the rule of law anymore then the stuff previously mentioned. Hell I am pretty sure Jefferson thought the constitution should be straight up rewritten every 19 years but they settled on amendments being good enough. | ||
|
Buckyman
1364 Posts
Constitutional law is special because it's so stable. Each amendment has time to be thoroughly debated before the next one. It also tends to spell out principles, leaving the details to lesser laws. So the principles should, in principle, remain largely constant. And when a principle is reinterpreted it tends to invalidate many of the lesser laws that relied on it. Jefferson aside, the proper way to modify a constitutional principle is with an amendment. Also, on a philosophical level, can a legislature truly said to have voted for a law when the law's meaning has changed drastically since they voted on it? *As an example of an exception, legalizing a formerly criminal activity is often retroactive in practice; people who already committed the act will have their charges dropped. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On April 05 2017 10:59 Danglars wrote: If the case involves the preservation of human life against destruction, maybe then I'll see broad deviations from originalism and textualism. The life and death issue, I admit, goes against what I said. I hope to eventually read his book if I can ever make it through my current book list. What do the originalists think of Solomon? | ||
|
Mysticesper
United States1183 Posts
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-obtains-apparent-epa-memos-on-plan-to-eliminate-reguations-914151491948 | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On April 05 2017 05:45 Doodsmack wrote: This reportedly covers ALL foreign visitors. What the... I guess this is how you kill evil globalism, just make sure nobody wants to come to you anymore. Then you can focus more easily on Bannons crazy nationalism agenda. | ||
|
pmh
1352 Posts
This is getting completely absurd lol. Is it forbidden to be in contact with the rusian president? During the cold war there was a hotline between Washington and Moscow to help prevent escalation of possible conflicts. This seems very much similar. The hotline was widely appreciated by the global community as an effort to stabilize the world and make it a bit more safe. Now contacts between the American and rusian government officials are scrutinized at every level. It realy is getting absurd,is there no one who sees this? The democrats are loosing it completely over this,pushing it way to far and beyond anything that is reasonable and sensible. Very disappointing. | ||
| ||
