Kagan

[Night Strike]

She just said that the Declaration of Independence means nothing to her. And this is to be a supreme court justice? ... How far we've fallen.

I wonder if she says the same thing about the laws of other nations or the United Nations. For some reason, I highly doubt it.

The Declaration of Independence isn't law. You guys are the ones who keep going on about keeping to the Constitution - now you think she should care about a letter written to the King of England?

That was my point, mostly. Many current liberal justices like to cite international laws as the basis for some of their decisions (much like O'Connor did in her Chicago Gun Dissent) without actually going to the Constitution. Nevermind the fact that this is entirely inappropriate (and unlawful in my opinion) considering they are supposed to examine the Constitution first and US laws if necessary. The whole point is if Kagan is so quick to dismiss the Declaration of Independence as a method to interpret our Constitution, is she also just as quick to dismiss international laws when deciding cases?? The answer is probably not.

[Nobunaga]

She just said that the Declaration of Independence means nothing to her. And this is to be a supreme court justice? ... How far we've fallen.

I wonder if she says the same thing about the laws of other nations or the United Nations. For some reason, I highly doubt it.

The Declaration of Independence isn't law. You guys are the ones who keep going on about keeping to the Constitution - now you think she should care about a letter written to the King of England?

The Declaration is not law, true enough. But to (roughly) quote Abraham Lincoln, The Declaration of Independence is the lens through which the Constitution is to be considered. The notions of God-given inalienable rights and the equality of men, notions on which this nation was founded, are first declared in the Declaration of Independence.

So, to have a justice shrug this off is more than a little disturbing.

[spurgistan]

She just said that the Declaration of Independence means nothing to her. And this is to be a supreme court justice? ... How far we've fallen.

I wonder if she says the same thing about the laws of other nations or the United Nations. For some reason, I highly doubt it.

The Declaration of Independence isn't law. You guys are the ones who keep going on about keeping to the Constitution - now you think she should care about a letter written to the King of England?

The Declaration is not law, true enough. But to (roughly) quote Abraham Lincoln, The Declaration of Independence is the lens through which the Constitution is to be considered. The notions of God-given inalienable rights and the equality of men, notions on which this nation was founded, are first declared in the Declaration of Independence.

So, to have a justice shrug this off is more than a little disturbing.

As a dude with the enormous responsibility of reading the Declaration to a bunch of people who really want to be drunk (I've posted past performances here, I get to go again tomorrow) I can honestly say that I couldn't really care if Kagan doesn't know every single thing the Crown did that really pissed off the Founders (hint: there's lots)

[InkL0sed]

She just said that the Declaration of Independence means nothing to her. And this is to be a supreme court justice? ... How far we've fallen.

I wonder if she says the same thing about the laws of other nations or the United Nations. For some reason, I highly doubt it.

The Declaration of Independence isn't law. You guys are the ones who keep going on about keeping to the Constitution - now you think she should care about a letter written to the King of England?

The Declaration is not law, true enough. But to (roughly) quote Abraham Lincoln, The Declaration of Independence is the lens through which the Constitution is to be considered. The notions of God-given inalienable rights and the equality of men, notions on which this nation was founded, are first declared in the Declaration of Independence.

So, to have a justice shrug this off is more than a little disturbing.

You seem to be implying the Constitution is open to interpretation. Apparently no other interpretation than yours, however.

[Nobunaga]

She just said that the Declaration of Independence means nothing to her. And this is to be a supreme court justice? ... How far we've fallen.

I wonder if she says the same thing about the laws of other nations or the United Nations. For some reason, I highly doubt it.

The Declaration of Independence isn't law. You guys are the ones who keep going on about keeping to the Constitution - now you think she should care about a letter written to the King of England?

The Declaration is not law, true enough. But to (roughly) quote Abraham Lincoln, The Declaration of Independence is the lens through which the Constitution is to be considered. The notions of God-given inalienable rights and the equality of men, notions on which this nation was founded, are first declared in the Declaration of Independence.

So, to have a justice shrug this off is more than a little disturbing.

You seem to be implying the Constitution is open to interpretation. Apparently no other interpretation than yours, however.

I imply no such thing. I say that to understand the Constitution and its intent the Declaration must be considered.

[InkL0sed]

Either the Constitution says exactly what it means, and requires no interpretation, or it doesn't, in which case interpretation is necessary. When you say you need a lens through which to read the Constitution, you are implying that you are interpreting it.

[Night Strike]

Either the Constitution says exactly what it means, and requires no interpretation, or it doesn't, in which case interpretation is necessary. When you say you need a lens through which to read the Constitution, you are implying that you are interpreting it.

The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of what the author's meant, not what current justices think. HUGE difference.

[PLAYER57832]

Kagan admitted she was a progressive. They stand against the constitution.

Progressives don't stand against the Constitution... they stand against the parts of the Constitution they don't like, and rather than attempting to amend the Constitution, they choose to rewrite the Constitution (i.e. the parts they don't like) judicially.

As opposed to, say, ruling that corporations should be considered like individuals in regards to free speech? Or declaring that just because someone refuses to answer questions doesn't mean they are asserting their right to refuse to answer questions?

Nice how when its something you don't like its "changing the constitution", but if you like it.. its not.

The fact is that any time Supreme Court justices make a ruling they are interpreting and, effectively, changing how the constitution will be viewed, whether it is to more narrowly define it or broaden it. This idea that one group is somehow more "progressive" than another group is yet another attempt by the conservative groups (not you specifically, though it seems in this case you buy into that) to create straw men to argue against, regardless of reality.

[PLAYER57832]

One very seriously ugly soon-to-be SCOTUS justisce.

Any thoughts?

That you seem to think "ugly" is important shows a lot of your unwillingness to debate real issues.

[PLAYER57832]

Either the Constitution says exactly what it means, and requires no interpretation, or it doesn't, in which case interpretation is necessary. When you say you need a lens through which to read the Constitution, you are implying that you are interpreting it.

Any ruling about the Constitution means interpreting it and, when it comes to the Supreme court, defining the law. The only question is how broad you feel that license should be. However, that seems to change depending on the political views of the speaker/poster.

[InkL0sed]

Either the Constitution says exactly what it means, and requires no interpretation, or it doesn't, in which case interpretation is necessary. When you say you need a lens through which to read the Constitution, you are implying that you are interpreting it.

Any ruling about the Constitution means interpreting it and, when it comes to the Supreme court, defining the law. The only question is how broad you feel that license should be. However, that seems to change depending on the political views of the speaker/poster.

Yes, I agree with all of that. The Constitution is always interpreted, there is no doubt about it.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that many people here like to pretend otherwise - as if the Constitution means one thing, specifically, and if you start interpreting it, you are actually bending it to mean what you want it to mean.

The truth is there is not a single gospel reading. A lot of things in it are quite vague or ambiguous, and sometimes there seem to be conflicting phrases within it. Said people are quite arrogant to believe that everybody who doesn't agree with them is just ignoring the Constitution.

[PLAYER57832]

Either the Constitution says exactly what it means, and requires no interpretation, or it doesn't, in which case interpretation is necessary. When you say you need a lens through which to read the Constitution, you are implying that you are interpreting it.

Any ruling about the Constitution means interpreting it and, when it comes to the Supreme court, defining the law. The only question is how broad you feel that license should be. However, that seems to change depending on the political views of the speaker/poster.

Yes, I agree with all of that. The Constitution is always interpreted, there is no doubt about it.

The point I was trying to make, though, is that many people here like to pretend otherwise - as if the Constitution means one thing, specifically, and if you start interpreting it, you are actually bending it to mean what you want it to mean.

The truth is there is not a single gospel reading. A lot of things in it are quite vague or ambiguous, and sometimes there seem to be conflicting phrases within it. Said people are quite arrogant to believe that everybody who doesn't agree with them is just ignoring the Constitution.

Which is why throwing out labels is so convenient. People wind up spending as much time or more debating the definitions instead of the real points.

Sadly, its been an all to effective tactic.

[tzor]

Either the Constitution says exactly what it means, and requires no interpretation, or it doesn't, in which case interpretation is necessary. When you say you need a lens through which to read the Constitution, you are implying that you are interpreting it.

That is clearly not true, there are a number of places where the constitution is not as precise as some people might want it to be. There are some places where real disagreement is possible. The biggest irony is that most of the problems are in those areas of the constitution that are clear and precise. It is these portions that have been ignored by the legislative and executive branch for generations!

[PLAYER57832]

Either the Constitution says exactly what it means, and requires no interpretation, or it doesn't, in which case interpretation is necessary. When you say you need a lens through which to read the Constitution, you are implying that you are interpreting it.

That is clearly not true, there are a number of places where the constitution is not as precise as some people might want it to be. There are some places where real disagreement is possible. The biggest irony is that most of the problems are in those areas of the constitution that are clear and precise. It is these portions that have been ignored by the legislative and executive branch for generations!

Read the response to my post... I think it clarifies things.

[King Doctor]

The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of what the author's meant, not what current justices think. HUGE difference.

So, just to test out a random example here, you think that it ought to be read and interpreted from the point of view of somebody in favour of legalised slavery? i.e. when we interpret the constitution, as you agree we must, we ought to be doing it through pro-slavery spectacles, just as its original authors would have been doing?


Or should we only read it from the point of view of a fictional and near deified author whose opinions just so happen to neatly coincide with everything that you wish that they thought?

[Night Strike]

The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of what the author's meant, not what current justices think. HUGE difference.

So, just to test out a random example here, you think that it ought to be read and interpreted from the point of view of somebody in favour of legalised slavery? i.e. when we interpret the constitution, as you agree we must, we ought to be doing it through pro-slavery spectacles, just as its original authors would have been doing?


Or should we only read it from the point of view of a fictional and near deified author whose opinions just so happen to neatly coincide with everything that you wish that they thought?

Claiming the Founding Fathers were pro-slavery just shows that you don't actually know them and what they actually believed in. Many of them were the first to free the slaves they owned once they formed the new nation, and they were the first ones to actually write in documents the desire that all people would eventually be treated equally. Slavery was allowed in the Constitution as a compromise to make sure it would be ratified by a supermajority of the states, but the understanding was that it would eventually be repealed once people understood the problems with slavery. It was actually many of the same Founding Fathers that you claim favored slavery who made sure that the slaves were at least partially counted in the census to begin de-legitimizing claims that slaves were just property. You really need to learn a proper history of the Founders before spouting revisionist nonsense.

[InkL0sed]

The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of what the author's meant, not what current justices think. HUGE difference.

So, just to test out a random example here, you think that it ought to be read and interpreted from the point of view of somebody in favour of legalised slavery? i.e. when we interpret the constitution, as you agree we must, we ought to be doing it through pro-slavery spectacles, just as its original authors would have been doing?


Or should we only read it from the point of view of a fictional and near deified author whose opinions just so happen to neatly coincide with everything that you wish that they thought?

Claiming the Founding Fathers were pro-slavery just shows that you don't actually know them and what they actually believed in. Many of them were the first to free the slaves they owned once they formed the new nation, and they were the first ones to actually write in documents the desire that all people would eventually be treated equally. Slavery was allowed in the Constitution as a compromise to make sure it would be ratified by a supermajority of the states, but the understanding was that it would eventually be repealed once people understood the problems with slavery. It was actually many of the same Founding Fathers that you claim favored slavery who made sure that the slaves were at least partially counted in the census to begin de-legitimizing claims that slaves were just property. You really need to learn a proper history of the Founders before spouting revisionist nonsense.

Your response actually points out the impossibility of knowing what the founders' intentions were, because they did not agree on what the Constitution should be. A compromise is inherently the result of multiple intentions. That is why, as I said earlier, there are many ambiguities and conflicts. If they were all alive today, I imagine they might debate the same things we do now.

[Phatscotty]

The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of what the author's meant, not what current justices think. HUGE difference.

So, just to test out a random example here, you think that it ought to be read and interpreted from the point of view of somebody in favour of legalised slavery? i.e. when we interpret the constitution, as you agree we must, we ought to be doing it through pro-slavery spectacles, just as its original authors would have been doing?


Or should we only read it from the point of view of a fictional and near deified author whose opinions just so happen to neatly coincide with everything that you wish that they thought?

Claiming the Founding Fathers were pro-slavery just shows that you don't actually know them and what they actually believed in. Many of them were the first to free the slaves they owned once they formed the new nation, and they were the first ones to actually write in documents the desire that all people would eventually be treated equally. Slavery was allowed in the Constitution as a compromise to make sure it would be ratified by a supermajority of the states, but the understanding was that it would eventually be repealed once people understood the problems with slavery. It was actually many of the same Founding Fathers that you claim favored slavery who made sure that the slaves were at least partially counted in the census to begin de-legitimizing claims that slaves were just property. You really need to learn a proper history of the Founders before spouting revisionist nonsense.

Your response actually points out the impossibility of knowing what the founders' intentions were, because they did not agree on what the Constitution should be. A compromise is inherently the result of multiple intentions. That is why, as I said earlier, there are many ambiguities and conflicts. If they were all alive today, I imagine they might debate the same things we do now.

Have you never read the federalist papers? Pretty sure you can "see" their intent there...

Unity in intention is not a pre-requisite to have intentions, or have them known to others...

[InkL0sed]

The Federalist papers were written by Madison (EDIT: Actually, Hamilton and John Jay too). The Constitution was written by many people.

[Titanic]

Your response actually points out the impossibility of knowing what the founders' intentions were, because they did not agree on what the Constitution should be. A compromise is inherently the result of multiple intentions. That is why, as I said earlier, there are many ambiguities and conflicts. If they were all alive today, I imagine they might debate the same things we do now.

I doubt it, the founders were intelligent men well versed in classical and modern philosophy amongst other areas. How many people on this site or media commentators and congressman do you think could talk about Locke and Plato and co with the ease and expertise that Jefferson did?

[InkL0sed]

Your response actually points out the impossibility of knowing what the founders' intentions were, because they did not agree on what the Constitution should be. A compromise is inherently the result of multiple intentions. That is why, as I said earlier, there are many ambiguities and conflicts. If they were all alive today, I imagine they might debate the same things we do now.

I doubt it, the founders were intelligent men well versed in classical and modern philosophy amongst other areas. How many people on this site or media commentators and congressman do you think could talk about Locke and Plato and co with the ease and expertise that Jefferson did?

I'm not saying the debate would be at the same level as this forum, but about the same topics generally debated in modern society.

[Night Strike]

Your response actually points out the impossibility of knowing what the founders' intentions were, because they did not agree on what the Constitution should be. A compromise is inherently the result of multiple intentions. That is why, as I said earlier, there are many ambiguities and conflicts. If they were all alive today, I imagine they might debate the same things we do now.

That is precisely why the Declaration of Independence can never be divorced from the Constitution. The Constitution became the written formation for this country after the Articles of Confederation failed to hold the states united. The writers knew they had to have a stronger federal government to hold the states together, but they also knew that a central government that became too powerful would lead to the loss of the rights that they had just fought for over the previous decade. How did they know what was too powerful? Because they had written it down in a letter to the King 11 years prior. The Declaration clearly stated how the King had taken away the natural rights of the people by overstepping the power he was given by the people. Many of the same men who knew the ills of total government were the same people who debated how much power to give the new US Federal Government. So yes, it is possible to know their intentions when writing the Constitution because they had been written 11 years prior.

[PLAYER57832]

Have you never read the federalist papers? Pretty sure you can "see" their intent there...

Unity in intention is not a pre-requisite to have intentions, or have them known to others...

If you have read it, then you know that there WAS very much dissention. Also, that was only one set of arguments. There were others, not included in the Federalist Papers.

[PLAYER57832]

So yes, it is possible to know their intentions when writing the Constitution because they had been written 11 years prior.

I see, so you believe that the signers of the declaration and the writers of the constitution were exactly the same people?

And you believe that a nation that has gone from 13 colonies to 50 states, that includes cultures not even imagined back then, that includes things like rights for women and people of all color, with airplanes, instant communication, etc.. you believe that what those original writers wanted is utterly complete for our day?

Funny, because it seems that the writers themselves never thought so, which is why they allowed for the process of amending the constitution. They also established a judiciary that would continually, not just once and leave it forever, but continually address new problems, new issues and sometimes, yes, evaluate old decisions in the light of changes in society and law, both.

[Night Strike]

So yes, it is possible to know their intentions when writing the Constitution because they had been written 11 years prior.

I see, so you believe that the signers of the declaration and the writers of the constitution were exactly the same people?

And you believe that a nation that has gone from 13 colonies to 50 states, that includes cultures not even imagined back then, that includes things like rights for women and people of all color, with airplanes, instant communication, etc.. you believe that what those original writers wanted is utterly complete for our day?

Funny, because it seems that the writers themselves never thought so, which is why they allowed for the process of amending the constitution. They also established a judiciary that would continually, not just once and leave it forever, but continually address new problems, new issues and sometimes, yes, evaluate old decisions in the light of changes in society and law, both.

I clearly said that "Many of the same men...", not exactly the same ones. Those original writers set out the ideals of this nation, all of which revolve around personal freedoms, not government control. The current government wants more control (and has ever since Lincoln, but especially since Wilson), and the judiciary, instead of doing their proper role of reviewing laws by looking at the Constitution, they choose to create new interpretations to "correct social ills". The judiciary has ABSOLUTELY NO responsibility to correct social ills: it's the job of the Congress to pass laws to change those problems as long as they are within the scope of the Constitution.