You know it's OK to kiss a nun, just don't get into the habit...I know this is meant to be humorous but it is an example of how the term "cancel culture" is used incorrectly. Because the Roman Catholic church is still very much in existence.
But it does remind me of one of my all-time favorite jokes. What do you call a sleepwalking nun? A roamin' catholic.
Mormon? How did I not know this? Being on SPS has to be some violation of something.
Terribly? Sometimes. There's no perfect way. We have plenty of appointed federal judges that think of themselves as super legislators. THey openly talk about a "living constitution", which basically means the law says what they want it to say. And there are no consequences for them because they have lifetime appointments.
A "living constitution" only means that our standards evolve over time. For example, the 8th(?) Amendments prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. What our society thinks that means today is likely different from what people (white male landowners) thought it meant in 1787. And that's proper and appropriate.
Not really. We are human and sport fans. I live by what my church teaches but not a fanatical in your face guy. Side Note: I hate BYU football.
This whole 'living document' vs 'strict constructionist' debate is such BS.
www.latimes.com
My favorite is when Barrett claimed to be an originalist during her confirmation hearing. If she were truly an originalist, she'd believe she wasn't allowed to vote, much less be a judge.This whole 'living document' vs 'strict constructionist' debate is such BS.
From more than 30 years ago, talks about interpreting/ignoring the 4th Amendment when its convenient.
When 'Strict Construction' Becomes Loosey-Goosey : Supreme Court: Conservatives say they want a "strict-constructionist" justice. But what they mean is a "loose constructionist"--the looser the better.
Once again there is an opening on the U.S.
From over 50 years ago, and it talks about examples from over 100 years ago.
The Same Justice Can Be Both a ‘Strict’ And a ‘Loose’ Constructionist (Published 1970)
A Lewis article, The Same Justice Can Be Both a 'Strict' and a 'Loose' Constructionist, discusses how various justices have approached task of interpreting Const; cites some opinions of Justices Holmes, Frankfurter and Black; concludes that Const has survived because it was written in open...www.nytimes.com
There are absolutely countless examples this century of 'strict constructionism(originalism)' being totally ignored when it suits a person or case. Originalism rose in popularity back in the 70s as a result of the Warren Court being seen, by those who disliked rulings, as too freewheeling. Rulings werent supposed to interpret prior case law or written law and instead, rulings were only supposed to be based on the words that were written(and ignore what was unwritten). This is quite idealistic, and it sounds great to most people. Its hot trash in application since so much of what Originalists base their views on is, in fact, interpretation of prior case law or written law.
Interpretation is not Originalism, no matter how much wiggling and justifying is done to claim otherwise.
The fact that some judges don't follow it on their pet issues despite claiming to follow it is not a problem with the doctrine itself. Nor does the doctrine imply that there are easy answers to every question or that reasonable people can't disagree in good faith. But it's much better than the view that the constitution or statutes mean whatever 5 justices say they mean (or worse, that they mean whatever one judge says and that there will be a nationwide injunction until a higher judge or panel says differently). People claim to care about democray or republicanism so much but think 5 lawyers from two different law schools should get to correct the constitution or Congress or the executive whenever they feel like it.This whole 'living document' vs 'strict constructionist' debate is such BS.
From more than 30 years ago, talks about interpreting/ignoring the 4th Amendment when its convenient.
When 'Strict Construction' Becomes Loosey-Goosey : Supreme Court: Conservatives say they want a "strict-constructionist" justice. But what they mean is a "loose constructionist"--the looser the better.
Once again there is an opening on the U.S.
From over 50 years ago, and it talks about examples from over 100 years ago.
The Same Justice Can Be Both a ‘Strict’ And a ‘Loose’ Constructionist (Published 1970)
A Lewis article, The Same Justice Can Be Both a 'Strict' and a 'Loose' Constructionist, discusses how various justices have approached task of interpreting Const; cites some opinions of Justices Holmes, Frankfurter and Black; concludes that Const has survived because it was written in open...
There are absolutely countless examples this century of 'strict constructionism(originalism)' being totally ignored when it suits a person or case. Originalism rose in popularity back in the 70s as a result of the Warren Court being seen, by those who disliked rulings, as too freewheeling. Rulings werent supposed to interpret prior case law or written law and instead, rulings were only supposed to be based on the words that were written(and ignore what was unwritten). This is quite idealistic, and it sounds great to most people. Its hot trash in application since so much of what Originalists base their views on is, in fact, interpretation of prior case law or written law.
Interpretation is not Originalism, no matter how much wiggling and justifying is done to claim otherwise.
You realize being an originalist doesn't mean you think the 27 amendments are invalid, right?
I'm just now listening to our secretary tell us that all of this is Congress's fault and we don't have a crisis at the border. It's just a little problem that everybody in the western hemisphere has.
Uh, that kinda is a problem with the doctrine. A BIG problem. It means the constitution means whatever I want it to mean, because when strict construction fits my desires, then strict construction it is, but when it doesn't fit my desires, then to hell with it. As opposed to a "living constitution", which means interpretation is dependent on society as a whole (and NOT whatever I want it to mean, which is a VERY bad faith argument to be making).
Man! I wish I knew enough about this to argue with someone on here!This whole 'living document' vs 'strict constructionist' debate is such BS.
From more than 30 years ago, talks about interpreting/ignoring the 4th Amendment when its convenient.
When 'Strict Construction' Becomes Loosey-Goosey : Supreme Court: Conservatives say they want a "strict-constructionist" justice. But what they mean is a "loose constructionist"--the looser the better.
Once again there is an opening on the U.S.
From over 50 years ago, and it talks about examples from over 100 years ago.
The Same Justice Can Be Both a ‘Strict’ And a ‘Loose’ Constructionist (Published 1970)
A Lewis article, The Same Justice Can Be Both a 'Strict' and a 'Loose' Constructionist, discusses how various justices have approached task of interpreting Const; cites some opinions of Justices Holmes, Frankfurter and Black; concludes that Const has survived because it was written in open...
There are absolutely countless examples this century of 'strict constructionism(originalism)' being totally ignored when it suits a person or case. Originalism rose in popularity back in the 70s as a result of the Warren Court being seen, by those who disliked rulings, as too freewheeling. Rulings werent supposed to interpret prior case law or written law and instead, rulings were only supposed to be based on the words that were written(and ignore what was unwritten). This is quite idealistic, and it sounds great to most people. Its hot trash in application since so much of what Originalists base their views on is, in fact, interpretation of prior case law or written law.
Interpretation is not Originalism, no matter how much wiggling and justifying is done to claim otherwise.
I am still trying to figure out why a group of people on a sports board are supposed to be so well-versed in all aspects of politics.
Honestly, I'm convinced that very few people are well versed in anything that requires reading comprehension. and critical thinking. That is true for our general population, thus true in Congress, on message boards; everywhere. The miracle is this ship even sails with the levels of ignorance, incompetence and selfishness inherent to our system of government!
You might want to tell that to the conservatives judges around the country who are taking every opportunity to strip Americans of the rights guaranteed by those amendments and whose only publicly expressed argument for doing so seems to be that those rights weren't specifically enumerated in the OG constitution.
You're probably right. But honestly, you should be fine without a Ph.D. to be a part of our government and make help things run correctly. You might need an MBA to know how to properly invest that lobby money.
Of late that is my observation as well. I think it is a recent development, but maybe it's always been that way.
Jared was paid billions by the Saudis? Please provide a credible source to prove this.
And anything you consider a legitimate news outlet I would likely consider as only running cover for the left and ignoring facts. (The southern border is currently under control, the Russian disinformation laptop, lab leak conspiracy......)
It's kinda like rival sports discussions. Some folks like to spin the turd of a team they root for as better than the other team regardless of performance or circumstance. Or when they lose, make up some ******** as to why they got cheated by their rival or wouldn't have lost it A, B, or C happened. Simple tribalism.
I guess the fun police locked it but we went 27 hours and 105 posts and this bad boy was going strong.
