Ginsberg is Incapable and Should Resign

Martin McGuinness said:
Scalia was a hack and I'm glad he's rotting. I hope he suffered as he died. He deserved it. The worst judge in American history, he did nothing besides hurt this nation. He was an evil man who ruled arbitrarily based on his political views rather than the law.
Click to expand...

in realty Scalia was very highly regarded by legal minds of all ideologies making the above rant a sign of bigotry
 
coolbreeze said:
Ginsburg is 84 and already senile, you would think that a Supreme Court Justice would not refer to a sitting Senator named Lindsey as a woman, her ability to process thoughts have become knee jerk, she hears the name Lindsey, assumes it's a girls name and is simply too senile to process beyond that.

I give her another year, tops. then say hello to 6-3
Click to expand...

You should be as senile as Ginsburg.
 
Rune said:
Bullshit
Click to expand...

originalism is still the most honest way to interpret law.

what is truly bullshit is turning a blind eye to originalism for political expedience.

assholes like you are why declarations of war and constitutional amendments went the way of the dodo bird.
 
zymurgy said:
originalism is still the most honest way to interpret law.

what is truly bullshit is turning a blind eye to originalism for political expedience.

assholes like you are why declarations of war and constitutional amendments went the way of the dodo bird.
Click to expand...
Um,no.
You are an idiot.
 
domer76 said:
Sure it is. Through the eyes of rich, 18th Century white men.
Click to expand...

attempting to understood how contracts were understood at the time of passage is the fairest way to interpret contract law

your phony play at racism to challenge that axiom is sophomoric
 
zymurgy said:
attempting to understood how contracts were understood at the time of passage is the fairest way to interpret contract law

your phony play at racism to challenge that axiom is sophomoric
Click to expand...
Tell us Brilliant nobody
and history buff, how did the founders feel about corporations? I know this is off topic, just curious.
 
zymurgy said:
attempting to understood how contracts were understood at the time of passage is the fairest way to interpret contract law

your phony play at racism to challenge that axiom is sophomoric
Click to expand...

Yep. Nothing has changed in 225 years.

Phony play at racism? How many blacks and/or women are considered the "Founding Fathers"? Zip, pal.

And the 3/5 Compromise had nothing to do with people being considered property.

Scalia was the enemy of civil rights and the mention of rich, 18th Century white men, and I'll even add slave owners, is relevant.

Checkmate.
 
domer76 said:
Yep. Nothing has changed in 225 years.

Phony play at racism? How many blacks and/or women are considered the "Founding Fathers"? Zip, pal.

And the 3/5 Compromise had nothing to do with people being considered property.

Scalia was the enemy of civil rights and the mention of rich, 18th Century white men, and I'll even add slave owners, is relevant.

Checkmate.
Click to expand...

you are extremely idiotic. sorry to of wasted my time. won't happen again
 
If someone, who just happens to be a bigot, writes the words "all men should be free" without thinking of the clear implications of those words fairly applied, should we interpret the clear meaning of the words or are we constrained by their bigotry?

The process of law for the past 200 years has been us shedding the progressive bigotry of the age and coming ever closer to the true meaning of justice in the words of the constitution. We perfected the constitution when we ruled that it protected hat marriage, we upheld a right that clearly existed for over a hundred years and had been ignored, we didn't make up anything new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top