Skip to main content

View Diary: How justices decide (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  True (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pico, Beastly Fool

    But that is because of the precedents set between 1937 and 1973.

    •  What precedents? (0+ / 0-)

      Going faster miles an hour, with the radio on.

      by Troubadour on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:08:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You want me to list them all? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        No Exit, Beastly Fool

        There are literally, hundreds of them.

        •  Precedents where liberals on the court (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Beastly Fool, Glenn45

          ignored the Constitution in order to advance the liberal agenda?  I'm not aware of any precedents to that effect.

          Going faster miles an hour, with the radio on.

          by Troubadour on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:16:53 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ignored the Constitution? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Beastly Fool, lostboyjim

            I'm not sure any one does that.

            I've written a lot on Constitutional Interpretation and it hard to give a full response in just a comment.

          •  Precedents where they made quite significant (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Odysseus, lgmcp

            revisions to our understanding of the Constitution (the modern interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause frankly stretches credulity, but it was what we needed to have a workable national government that responds to modern concerns).

          •  Perhaps you haven't heard (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wilderness voice, lostboyjim

            about the emanations from the penumbra. Or was that the penumbra of the emanations? No matter—it led to the desired result. Nothing but pure non-ideological Constitutionalism for J. Douglas, yessir.

            •  Bc of the abomination of the Slaughterhouse (0+ / 0-)

              cases.  All Douglas did was recognize that the Court thereafter slowly reached the same result intended by the framers of the 14th A without just biting the bullet and overruling the bs rulings from the 'revenge of the Confederacy' Justices thru the 'let's let industry X buy the next Justice' (the railroads, then coal/steel, the JP Morgan/oil, etc.) Courts.

              Do you deny that the notion of respect for the personal autonomy of the individual over his own body and mind was at the core of the 13th-15th?

              •  Are you offering an argument (0+ / 0-)

                for originalism? Or do we, as is general in law, attempt to stick to the actual language of the law? So, no, I don't think that vague notions of personal autonomy should decide court cases.

                •  Do you plan on answering MY question or just ducki (0+ / 0-)

                  ng and throwing buzzwords around without any understanding of the history of the constitutinal law at issue here?  Bc it sure seems to be the latter.

                  •  Please reread (0+ / 0-)

                    1) I thought I answered your question. Let me be plainer:
                    No, I do not think that the vague "notion of respect for the personal autonomy of the individual over his own body and mind was at the core of the 13th-15th"—as opposed to notions of political liberty precluding slavery and then of the full extension of civil rights to all citizens.

                    Thanks otherwise for your condescension, but I actually teach philosophy of law, some aspects of constitutional law, and have taught history and written professionally on constitutional issues for textbooks. So, yeah, I think I have some understanding of the history of what is at issue.

                    •  Perhaps you should re-read the abolisionists? (0+ / 0-)

                      Granted, there's alot of 18th C religionist nonsense grafted onto those Englightment views (second great Awakening and all that, you know?), but it remains - as does the enitre Bill of Rights - essentially an Enlightenment view of personhood.  You know, the whole Quaker, Paine, Jeffersonian (ya, I know, ironic) notion of free-willed moral actors of inherent equal value.

                      As for your qualifications- they neither appear nor are reflected in the content of your comment.  Rather, all that is there is a rightwing buzzword ('originalism') with no actual content (or did you mean 'original intent', an entirely different animal?) and a means of statutory construction of little real value in Constitutional construction except again in rightwing world (what do the Founders say about GPS? rockets? drones? cloning? abortion?  Zip. Nada. Zilch.)  Likewise, your offhand and pejorative dismissal of Douglas, one the great liberal Justices of the 20th C (and imo wholy unwarranted and wongheaded dismissed: sure, 'pernumbra' sounds silly but the central concept - that the Bill of Rights and 13-15th Amends shared and expressed core concepts of what the American system finds uniquely valuable in individual humans is amply supportable by the various Framers writings, congressional record for the BofR/13-15, views in popular media/opinions, etc.  And sure, you can find contra evidence.  Makes the wordl go round, you got your opinion, I got mine and both stink like aresholes, 'Goodnight, johnboy!')

                      But, no, I didn't - and still don't - find your prior comment 'answered' anything.  Brief and flippant, specious, repeating rightwing buzzwords, yes.  But, 'answer'?  Not so much.

                      As for your second comments 'answer' of it: I beleive you short-change the document, its framers and adopters, the voters of the times, and all of us today if you truly see the 13th-15th as only based on "notions of political libertyprecluding slavery" without asking about the rest of the story, i.e., what they - and we - think are the source, and inherent force and scope of those civil rights thus "fully extended".  IMO, that is an essential different bt a statue and constitution - and especially the portions of same defining the limits of politcs and political and statory power.

                      BTW, I'm not exactly a neophyte on this subject either.  

        •  I miss justices like Douglas, Brennan... (6+ / 0-)

          Marshall and warren....

          Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. - Gandalf the Grey

          by No Exit on Tue Apr 02, 2013 at 05:28:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site