Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

I would dispute the filibuster part if it, that was getting tossed no matter what.

I'm sure that he is sincere in his belief, that now the Supreme Court can do their job now that the liberals have been thwarted. First thing on their agenda is overturning Roe, I know talent is on record saying they won't and he has a plausible reason but the ones celebrating the retirement don't see that. It's not just Toobin who says that, but Toobin or anyone on the left is the only one talent will acknowledge.

[froot loops]

What's a strict constructionist argument in defense of Brown v Board? That's a decision that only the most extreme originalists or bigots want to overturn and yet it's almost entirely based upon feel-good prog emotion rather than stare decisis, original intent, etc. etc.

Goldberg and most conservatives are willing to accept living constitution decisions when they actually sympathize with the outcome.

The strict constructionist argument on Shelby is it violated the 14th and 15th arguments because times have changed. A weird construction if you ask me.

[froot loops]

To further expand on Goldberg letting the Supreme Court do its job, that would mean rolling back gay marriage. Talent has complained numerous times on that tortured opinion

[iam416]

What's a strict constructionist argument in defense of Brown v Board? That's a decision that only the most extreme originalists or bigots want to overturn and yet it's almost entirely based upon feel-good prog emotion rather than stare decisis, original intent, etc. etc.

Goldberg and most conservatives are willing to accept living constitution decisions when they actually sympathize with the outcome.

Creating separate schools for white folks and black folks seems to be a violation of the equal protection clause on its face. But, if you have an actual example of living constitution decisions that Goldberg/conservatives agree with, then post them.

I'm sure that he is sincere in his belief, that now the Supreme Court can do their job now that the liberals have been thwarted. First thing on their agenda is overturning Roe, I know talent is on record saying they won't and he has a plausible reason but the ones celebrating the retirement don't see that. It's not just Toobin who says that, but Toobin or anyone on the left is the only one talent will acknowledge.

One of us will be right and the other wrong. For some reason, my opinion on future events angers you enough to keep at it. But what's the point? One of us will be right and the other wrong.

To further expand on Goldberg letting the Supreme Court do its job, that would mean rolling back gay marriage. Talent has complained numerous times on that tortured opinion

The decision is, indeed, awful. But your conclusion doesn't not follow. The Supreme Court doesn't have to go back and undo every bad opinion out there. But prospectively it won't be legislating for #GentryProgs that can't win at the ballot box. Hence, it will start to do it's job.

But, keep firing away, dude.

[froot loops]

You are very good at policing the horrors of the Gentryprogs.

[iam416]

Super.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Creating separate schools for white folks and black folks seems to be a violation of the equal protection clause on its face. But, if you have an actual example of living constitution decisions that Goldberg/conservatives agree with, then post them.

For 50-60 years before 1954 it was accepted, settled law that state-enforced segregation did NOT violate the equal protection clause on its face. What changed in the early 50's other than progs now ran everything and suddenly segregation didn't feel right? That decision explicitly ignores precedent and even the intent of the authors of the equal protection clause. There IS no good strict constructionist defense of it. I can go find some more originalist arguments on how the legal reasoning in Brown is godawful if you want. I found one before I even posted this.

http://www.arcaneknowledge.org/histpoli/brown.htm

So yeah, the Brown decision IS a living constitution decision and all but the most extreme originalists accept it.

[froot loops]

So as an originalist, do you reject Berger's opinion on Brown and his view of the 14th amendment?

[iam416]

That decision explicitly ignores precedent and even the intent of the authors of the equal protection clause

It did IGNORE precedent but it did FOLLOW the plain terms of the EPC. If overturning precedent is activist -- I mean, ok. I'm not sure why a case that got it wrong in the first instance should determine whether the subsequent case is activist or not.

But, to the substance, the question in Plessy (and then Brown) wasn't whether the equal protection clause could apply to the issue of segregation, but whether as applied it created adverse affects. This is the entire heart of the Plessy decision:

Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other, and have been generally, if not universally, recognized as within the competency of the state legislatures in the exercise of their police power.

If that assumption is incorrect, then your interpretation of the plain words of the Equal Protection clause change. That assumption was, absolutely, incorrect and rectified by the Court in Brown. It was no longer possible to believe that segregation produced equality.

Brown 2 was activist in that it put control of desegregation into the Courts.

So, yes, there IS a damn good defense of Brown 1.

And as an FYI, when things change that doesn't mean we can't figure out the what it means under the Constitution. The Court just held that the 4th A applied to protect searches of location based on cell data. I'm quite certain that the Founders never contemplated searching GPS-based cell data. But I'm also quite certain they wanted restrictions against State efforts to conduct searches and seizures.

But, let's set all that aside (and I can't read your link because it's blocked at work as some sort of social networking site). Let's set that all aside. The idea that the conservatives justices are "just as outcome-based" as the #GentryProgs is a fucking favorite canard of anyone and everyone who hates the likes of Scalia. They find 1 or 2 decisions and say, AHA! (oh, the whataboutism). As if that resolves it. And here you are -- AHA!!!! Brown means we must support a living constitution! I can do the same and say (far more persuasively than you do) that Dred Scott is an awful ACTIVIST case. AHA! If that's how the game is played.

But, for me, it's not. It's about process, separation of powers and all that other stuff #GentryProgs find utterly pointless. And there is no question, at all, that the so-called "conservative" justices are far more likely to empower those concepts than the so-called "Prog" justices. If you dis agree with that, then make your case.

[hack]

It's about process, separation of powers and all that other stuff #GentryProgs find utterly pointless.

Not for you it isn't, or at least the version of you here. Maybe you are just talking about a narrow slice of process that you care for deeply and know intimately, and, in which case, well, could be. Obviously people that know it as well as you or better than you disagree with your reading of it, so ultimately we're in the territory of values not facts.

But that aside, no matter your opinion, one might presume that an awareness of the importance of the process in one area of governance would translate into some sort of respect for it in others. You seem to have none.

[Kapture1]

[hack]

In fact it seems governance for you in large part constitutes the identification of people who express themselves in annoying ways followed by the support of outcomes that disappoint those people even if you happen to agree with them or not on the issue at hand.

[iam416]

Not for you it isn't, or at least the version of you here. Maybe you are just talking about a narrow slice of process that you care for deeply and know intimately, and, in which case, well, could be. Obviously people that know it as well as you or better than you disagree with your reading of it, so ultimately we're in the territory of values not facts.

But that aside, no matter your opinion, one might presume that an awareness of the importance of the process in one area of governance would translate into some sort of respect for it in others. You seem to have none.

I really value your personal attack on or critique of me. I consider your contributions, especially in that regard, invaluable. And I'm honored that you took two posts to do so. Thank you.

[CGVT]

In fact it seems governance for you in large part constitutes the identification of people who express themselves in annoying ways followed by the support of outcomes that disappoint those people even if you happen to agree with them or not on the issue at hand.

What? Talent's a troll?

No way.

[iam416]

Oh god. CGVT doesn't respect me? This will be a trying day.