Skip to main content

View Diary: Robert Bork's influence over antitrust law (97 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Is your comment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wham Bam

    even English?

    She said everyone who is originalist is a racist.  

    I showed first rate legal scholars who wrestled with the doctrine, and who were clearly not.

    That ends the argument.

    That doesn't mean I have to introduce a discussion of the ins and outs of originalism.

    The bitter truth of deep inequality has been disguised by an era of cheap imported goods and the anyone-can-make-it celebrity myth - Polly Toynbee

    by fladem on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:23:04 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nevermind. I forgot who I am talking to (0+ / 0-)
      Rather than being a dick, for once try to answer someone's question. I wanted to know what was liberal about how they view the constitution as far as policies are concerned. It had less to do with the other persons comment, and everything to do with your thesis, and my trying to understand is validity.

      Instead of doing that, you double downed on the appeal to authority approach. Its said you can not ever engage in a conversation.

    •  She? (0+ / 0-)

      I is a he.

      And I know of no prominent current originalists who are not effectively bigots, because interpreting the constitution according to their narrow view would restore most power to the rich white males who until very recently ran and owned nearly everything.

      In constitutional interpretation, you can and should never exclude results. I know this is heretical to the sociopathic faux intellectual nimrods like George Will who pretend to be latter day Madisons and Hamiltons. But it's how a civilized society operates.

      "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

      by kovie on Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 08:31:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmmm but then all you have is law of the jungle (0+ / 0-)

        "I currently have political power.  I want these results so that's what the meaning of the Constitution is."

        That's great if you've got a lot of judges on your side.  But if (as seems likely right now) the Republicans have a large majority in the Senate in 2012 and a Republican replaces him as president (definitely possible) we could end up with a LOT of very conservative judges rammed through very fast.

        Then what will you say?

        •  De facto, this IS how things work (0+ / 0-)

          as per Marbury v. Madison, and there's not much we can do about it, lawfully, other than wait until we can put judges more to our liking in place. But if you read my other comments here, you're see that de jure, you still have to abide by the fundamental restrictions and powers in the constitution. You just don't have to limit yourself to a literal interpretation of them, in terms of literally enumerated powers. To do so, as Hamilton wrote in the Federalist and many Republicans including Madison and Jefferson came to realize in practice, would be to make the constitution a dead letter.

          Come on, we're not still debating implied powers, are we? That's lunacy.

          "Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" --Alexander Hamilton

          by kovie on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:21:54 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site