A left-wing protester at an antifa Denver rally shot and killed a conservative

Dutch Uncle said:
It's okay to be biased toward the Constitution. It's only wrong to be biased against is as you have often been.

We, the People will figure it out. Right now the majority of people are sane and minding their own business. It's only the minority of idiots who are doing all of the entertaining.
Click to expand...

Seeing as how the Constitution can be interpreted in multiple ways, being biased towards the Constitution can come in many forms.

As far as my own biases go, I have my doubts in a lot of things about this system, democracy, and the West in general, but I try to go with what seems to be the interpretation that the Founders intended.
 
Woko Haram said:
I'm not sure what that means, but if you're saying that I'm biased towards minimizing gun restrictions, then I'll give you that.
Click to expand...

That's the problem; you aren't. You've already admitted that gun rights depend upon political polarity and if they are a State that complies with your set beliefs. Both of those beliefs are anti-American and anti-Constitutional.
 
Woko Haram said:
Seeing as how the Constitution can be interpreted in multiple ways, being biased towards the Constitution can come in many forms.

As far as my own biases go, I have my doubts in a lot of things about this system, democracy, and the West in general, but I try to go with what seems to be the interpretation that the Founders intended.
Click to expand...

QED. You admit to redefining the Constitution to fit your beliefs. Dude, it can only be read one way; the way SCOTUS and Congress read it.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
That's the problem; you aren't. You've already admitted that gun rights depend upon political polarity and if they are a State that complies with your set beliefs. Both of those beliefs are anti-American and anti-Constitutional.
Click to expand...

I was talking about how rights are limited in practice. It doesn't mean that I agree with them being limited in the ways I'm referring to. There's a big difference between acknowledging how something operates in reality vs. agreeing with the principle of how it operates.

In an ideal world, no government would limit our natural rights, but unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of people with power seek to limit our rights, and they're quite effective at it oftentimes.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
QED. You admit to redefining the Constitution to fit your beliefs. Dude, it can only be read one way; the way SCOTUS and Congress read it.
Click to expand...

Ok, now we're talking about how laws are officially interpreted. The interpretation that the SCOTUS will take on something is directly dependent on the biases of the Justices. This is why we've had several SCOTUS rulings overturned over the years.

There was a time when Separate but Equal was considered constitutional. Now, it's not.

So, you basically just proved my point.
 
Woko Haram said:
Ok, now we're talking about how laws are officially interpreted. The interpretation that the SCOTUS will take on something is directly dependent on the biases of the Justices. This is why we've had several SCOTUS rulings overturned over the years.

There was a time when Separate but Equal was considered constitutional. Now, it's not.

So, you basically just proved my point.
Click to expand...

Goal post moving. We were talking about the Constitution, which you said was subject to interpretation. Now you're talking about laws.

Which SCOTUS rulings have been overturned recently?
 
Woko Haram said:
I was talking about how rights are limited in practice. It doesn't mean that I agree with them being limited in the ways I'm referring to. There's a big difference between acknowledging how something operates in reality vs. agreeing with the principle of how it operates.

In an ideal world, no government would limit our natural rights, but unfortunately, the reality is that a lot of people with power seek to limit our rights, and they're quite effective at it oftentimes.
Click to expand...
Not just people with power but even asshole equals. Property rights, deadbeat dads, car crashes, con men, etc.

Agreed it's wrong to limit people's natural rights.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Goal post moving. We were talking about the Constitution, which you said was subject to interpretation. Now you're talking about laws.

Which SCOTUS rulings have been overturned recently?
Click to expand...

The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret it, which again, is determined by the biases of whoever is currently sitting on the Court.

As far as rulings that have been overturned, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

There are over 300 of them. One of the more recent ones of note applies to qualified immunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Callahan
 
Woko Haram said:
The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret it, which again, is determined by the biases of whoever is currently sitting on the Court.

As far as rulings that have been overturned, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions

There are over 300 of them. One of the more recent ones of note applies to qualified immunity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Callahan
Click to expand...

Which is the entire point of picking fair judges, not activist judges who hand out pardons to criminal politicians or are swayed by public opinion.

Good. Thanks for the link. Do you think most of those rulings increased freedom of Americans or decreased it? Any examples strike you as the worst?
 
Woko Haram said:
Sure, I agree with that, although pardons are only given by Presidents and Governors.
Click to expand...

They would be asked to rule on those Presidents and Governors pardoning themselves.

Are we agreed to be against activist judges, judges who are appointed based upon politics?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Are we agreed to be against activist judges, judges who are appointed based upon politics?
Click to expand...

In principle, yes. In practice, I'm not sure how we'll ever get to that point, however.

The SCOTUS sorely needs some constitutional changes. No one in a democratic republic should be appointed for life.
 
Woko Haram said:
In principle, yes. In practice, I'm not sure how we'll ever get to that point, however.

The SCOTUS sorely needs some constitutional changes. No one in a democratic republic should be appointed for life.
Click to expand...

It's been done before for plenty of years; it's just bipartisan confirmations, not simple majority. Trump has gone directly away from bipartisan confirmations. Those who support him doing so are part of the problem.

There you go again, rewriting the Constitution and distorting it from what the Founders wanted. :cool:

BTW, here's the problem most numbnuts on this forum don't understand: Technology changes but people don't. The Founders understood human strengths and weaknesses very well.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
It's been done before for plenty of years; it's just bipartisan confirmations, not simple majority. Trump has gone directly away from bipartisan confirmations. Those who support him doing so are part of the problem.

There you go again, rewriting the Constitution and distorting it from what the Founders wanted. :cool:

BTW, here's the problem most numbnuts on this forum don't understand: Technology changes but people don't. The Founders understood human strengths and weaknesses very well.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of mistakes the Founders made. Not putting an explicit limit on the number of Justices or on the length of time a Justice can be on the court were just a few.

Trump is definitely not the first president to go against bipartisanship in confirmations, however. That started quite a while ago. Confirmation hearings didn't even start until 1916. Candidates for confirmation didn't start appearing at hearings until 1939. 1959 was the first very heated and partisan confirmation (Potter Stewart being the nominee at the time).

It is true that most confirmations historically haven't been partisan, but they started becoming more that way by the 80s. Robert Bork's failed confirmation vote was a good example of that. By the time Trump entered office, we had already had many party line confirmation votes. By now, it's the norm.
 
You are nothing but a apparent typical Putin winger and un American lap dog for a lawlessly hacked in criminal against humanity tRump who conspired among his sold out right in the gutter republicans to coronavirus murder over 200,000 America, COVID-45 infect over 7 million, create a second great global depression and causing the entire civilized part of humanity to experience the atrocities of a un American tRump menace on humanity. This demonstrates that you need to seek some psychiatric intake in order to be treated for your severe case of a damaged mental deficiency and apparent serious cognitive disorders. This includes with the possible affects of too much alcohol you cannot handle and other mind altering substances and illicit encounters that separates you from having a decent, civilized and rational character.
 
gemini104104 said:
You are nothing but a apparent typical Putin winger and un American lap dog for a lawlessly hacked in criminal against humanity tRump who conspired among his sold out right in the gutter republicans to coronavirus murder over 200,000 America, COVID-45 infect over 7 million, create a second great global depression and causing the entire civilized part of humanity to experience the atrocities of a un American tRump menace on humanity. This demonstrates that you need to seek some psychiatric intake in order to be treated for your severe case of a damaged mental deficiency and apparent serious cognitive disorders. This includes with the possible affects of too much alcohol you cannot handle and other mind altering substances and illicit encounters that separates you from having a decent, civilized and rational character.
Click to expand...

Salty, is that you? Your algorithm is screwing up again. The sentence structure is incoherent, but I'm sure you'll get it down with a few more tweaks to the translator program.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top