President Donald J. Trump

[21st Century Man]

Which Supreme Court decisions are you hoping will be set right by strict constructionist judges? What do you want changed or reversed? Is the problem actually the rulings themselves or more about the fact that you think justices have legislated from the bench and overstepped their authority? What is it about, say, a moderate court that would scare you more than the full-on effects of a Trump presidency?

There is no moderate court under a Clinton Presidency.  And yes, I think justices have legislated far too often from the bench.  That is not their job.

[GravitySucks]

Townhall is a lying right wing rag, I have no interest in reading them.  Find me a non partisan, respected source like Norman Ornstein is.  What was debunked was the claim that the things you site were done for nefarious purposes rather than the result of simple human error.

As to ConservativeTribune, Norman Ornstein addressed the reason why more conservative charitable organizations were targeted than liberal ones, and the write-up there does not dispute that (it simply doesn't mention it.)

Anyway, now we know what your 'news' sources are.

No Stanley Cup for Canada until you agree with me. Mark my words.

[136 or 142]

Bork was a strict constructionist .  You spelled it wrong.  The term has been used for decades and is not just used by right wingers. It is all about original intent.  There are plenty of essays written by the framers so we can gather what their original intent was.  As a matter of fact, the Constitution itself is easy to read and understand.  It is very plainly written and only a moron couldn't understand it or an illiberal such as yourself. Today's educators and politicians try to warp the words to suit their own needs and make it a "living and breathing document."  Now there's a left wing hack term if I ever heard one.  It is only living and breathing in the sense that it can be amended.  It is not living and breathing in the sense that it opens itself to many interpretations.  Like I said, it is plainly written.

In order to be plainly written it has to be general, as do the essays written by the framers.  If you think that applying their general prescriptions to specific situations is an easy thing to do, and does not require a large amount of interpretation, you're not just a Trumptard, you're genuinely retarded.

How was Bork a 'strict constructionist' other than a bunch of right wingers claimed he was one?

This blog post further explains better than I ever could why the term is meaningless: http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2004/05/legal_theory_le_3.html

This disputes what you wrote:
Problems with intentionalism[edit]
However, a number of problems are inherent in intentionalism, and a fortiori when that theory is applied to the Constitution. For example, most of the Founders did not leave detailed discussions of what their intent was in 1787, and while a few did, there is no reason to think that they should be dispositive of what the rest thought. Moreover, the discussions of the drafters may have been recorded, however they were not available to the ratifiers in each state. The theory of original intent was challenged in a string of law review articles in the 1980s.[14] Specifically, original intent was seen as lacking good answers to three important questions: whether a diverse group such as the framers even had a single intent; if they did, whether it could be determined from two centuries' distance; and whether the framers themselves would have supported original intent.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism#Problems_with_intentionalism

This backs up my original argument the closest:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/constitutional-myth-1-the-right-is-originalist-everyone-else-is-idiotic/239291/

"But in reaching their conclusions, conservatives rely on the same tools progressives do--text, structure, history, political philosophy, interpretive theory, and practicality.  When Justice Scalia--or anyone else in this context--describes those whose differ with him as idiots, he is not just being rude and vulgar, he is being dishonest."

Calling people idiots is rude or vulgar?  Shame on me!

[136 or 142]

No Stanley Cup for Canada until you agree with me. Mark my words.

Oh, sorry.  Ornstein is a liar and Townhall are truth tellers.

[Value Of Pi]

There is no moderate court under a Clinton Presidency.  And yes, I think justices have legislated far too often from the bench.  That is not their job.

So which rulings would you want a constructionist court to fix or change? I'm assuming that you agree with some decisions in recent decades and don't agree with others. Also, that a constructionist court wouldn't have made certain rulings you don't like.

[21st Century Man]

In order to be plainly written it has to be general, as do the essays written by the framers.  If you think that applying their general prescriptions to specific situations is an easy thing to do, and does not require a large amount of interpretation, you're not just a Trumptard, you're genuinely retarded.

How was Bork a 'strict constructionist' other than a bunch of right wingers claimed he was one?

This blog post further explains better than I ever could why the term is meaningless: http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theory_lexicon/2004/05/legal_theory_le_3.html

Sigh.  I can't help you if you need a reading comprehension tutor to guide you sentence by sentence through the Constitution.  The author of the blog you referred to appears to be confused about the meaning behind the term.  I don't blame you for being confused after reading that person's blog.

Here's an article to explain it.  You can find hundreds of more articles to read if you can't quite grasp the meaning.  Just google what is strict constructionism.

http://legaldictionary.net/strict-constructionism/

[21st Century Man]

So which rulings would you want a constructionist court to fix or change? I'm assuming that you agree with some decisions in recent decades and don't agree with others. Also, that a constructionist court wouldn't have made certain rulings you don't like.

I disagree with all of the courts decisions that act as legislation for new law.  Take the gay marriage decision. I opposed it not because I hate gays but because I think it is up to the voters and state politicians to decide whether they want it or not. Let the will of the people decide.   Most of these issues should be left to the states.  That is all I ask.  I despise judicial activism whether it is on the left or right.

[136 or 142]

Sigh.  I can't help you if you need a reading comprehension tutor to guide you sentence by sentence through the Constitution.  The author of the blog you referred to appears to be confused about the meaning behind the term.  I don't blame you for being confused after reading that person's blog.

Here's an article to explain it.  You can find hundreds of more articles to read if you can't quite grasp the meaning.  Just google what is strict constructionism.

http://legaldictionary.net/strict-constructionism/

You must not have read that article before posting because it completely agrees with what I wrote:

Legal Application of Strict Constructionism
One of the most challenging issues of judicial procedure is applying the law when making legal decisions. While many statutes (laws) are written in very specific language, making it relatively easy in many situations to apply the law case-by-case, other laws, and the provisions of the Constitution, are rather vague. Because every legal case is unique, this poses a problem for many judges, who are left with a quandary as to interpretation.

Strict constructionists are those people who believe that every law and constitutional provision should not be subject to interpretation, but applied strictly as written. This means that, under strict constructionism, there is no room for considering the context in which the law was made, or for taking into account the specific circumstances of any individual case. The very idea of taking such a narrow view of the nation’s freedoms, obligations, and laws, is seen by many to be irrational, leading to the moniker “the doctrine of absurdity.”

"...the provisions of the Constitution are rather vague"

I believe this is appropriate right now:  You:  "durrr, durrr, durrr."

[GravitySucks]

I disagree with all of the courts decisions that act as legislation for new law.  Take the gay marriage decision. I opposed it not because I hate gays but because I think it is up to the voters and state politicians to decide whether they want it or not. Let the will of the people decide.   Most of these issues should be left to the states.  That is all I ask.  I despise judicial activism whether it is on the left or right.

Show me in the 1st amendment where freedom of speech covers a right to an abortion.

[136 or 142]

I disagree with all of the courts decisions that act as legislation for new law.  Take the gay marriage decision. I opposed it not because I hate gays but because I think it is up to the voters and state politicians to decide whether they want it or not. Let the will of the people decide.   Most of these issues should be left to the states.  That is all I ask.  I despise judicial activism whether it is on the left or right.

You've written before that you're married.  Why didn't your fellow Americans (or the fellow citizens of your state) get to vote on that?

I guess the meaning of the phrase 'equal protection' is no longer clear to you.  Maybe I can help guide you through your Constitution sentence by sentence.

[136 or 142]

Show me in the 1st amendment where freedom of speech covers a right to an abortion.

What did the First Amendment have to do with Roe v. Wade?

[GravitySucks]

What did the First Amendment have to do with Roe v. Wade?

That was the premise they based their ruling on.

My mistake. That must have been used in the oral arguments but the court shoe horned it in und r the 14th amendment due process clause.

[Value Of Pi]

I disagree with all of the courts decisions that act as legislation for new law.  Take the gay marriage decision. I opposed it not because I hate gays but because I think it is up to the voters and state politicians to decide whether they want it or not. Let the will of the people decide.   Most of these issues should be left to the states.  That is all I ask.  I despise judicial activism whether it is on the left or right.

So that would include a ruling like Miranda, which had the effect of forcing law enforcement and the courts to change the way they operate, just as if Congress had passed a law? That matter should have been left to state legislatures or voter referendums?

[136 or 142]

That was the premise they based their ruling on.

Not according to Wiki:  The Court ruled 7â€"2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

[21st Century Man]

You've written before that you're married.  Why didn't your fellow Americans (or the fellow citizens of your state) get to vote on that?

I guess the meaning of the phrase 'equal protection' is no longer clear to you.  Maybe I can help guide you through your Constitution sentence by sentence.

Heterosexual marriage has been an institution in civilization for thousands of years.  Homosexual marriage is a new thing.  Equal protection did not apply until recently whether right or wrong. Frankly, if I had my druthers, the government would stay out of the marriage business altogether; however, since our tax laws and such give us tax breaks and the like if we are married, there has to be some sort of recognition.  Still, it is not the business of judges to enact new law and that is exactly what the justices did in that decision.  It should have been left to the states.  If the states wanted homosexual marriage, then great. I will point out that the 10th amendment gives no proviso to the federal goverrnment to enact or make such a law.

Let me use another recent case,  the Obamacare case.  Justice Roberts enacted new law when he said that Obamacare fine was a tax when it clearly wasn't meant to be.  More activism.

[GravitySucks]

Not according to Wiki:  The Court ruled 7â€"2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[1] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

I corrected my post. Abortions used to be a states rights issue, just like gay marriage. Until the Supreme court legislated from the bench.

[21st Century Man]

So that would include a ruling like Miranda, which had the effect of forcing law enforcement and the courts to change the way they operate, just as if Congress had passed a law? That matter should have been left to state legislatures or voter referendums?

It is complicated but in my opinion, yes.  It should have not been under the purview of the federal government.  The feds were never meant to be in the law enforcement business anyway.

[GravitySucks]

I corrected my post. Abortions used to be a states rights issue, just like gay marriage. Until the Supreme court legislated from the bench.

And I have no idea how they stretched right to privacy to include right to an abortion.

[136 or 142]

Heterosexual marriage has been an institution in civilization for thousands of years.  Homosexual marriage is a new thing.  Equal protection did not apply until recently whether right or wrong. Frankly, if I had my druthers, the government would stay out of the marriage business altogether; however, since our tax laws and such give us tax breaks and the like if we are married, there has to be some sort of recognition.  Still, it is not the business of judges to enact new law and that is exactly what the justices did in that decision.  It should have been left to the states.  If the states wanted homosexual marriage, then great. I will point out that the 10th amendment gives no proviso to the federal goverrnment to enact or make such a law.

Let me use another recent case,  the Obamacare case.  Justice Roberts enacted new law when he said that Obamacare fine was a tax when it clearly wasn't meant to be.  More activism.

1.Homosexual marriage is not a 'new thing.'  It is in the United States of America (though it was apparently common with some native tribes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Equal protection didn't apply until recently because no case on gay marriage had been taken before the courts (the Supreme Court anyway) until recently.

It seems your argument is that due to 'homosexual marriage being a new thing' that the equal protection provisions don't apply.  Where does it say in anything written by the founders that only things that existed during the time of the writing of the Constitution are subject to equal protection? Because if it doesn't then that is your personal definition of 'equal protection' and not based on anything actually written.  I think your 'strict constructionists' might be very unhappy with you right now.

The Supreme Court did not 'enact' new law.  They interpreted the equal protection clause of the Constitution to strike down laws banning gay marriage.  Without these laws, gay marriage became legal, and, any laws that applied to heterosexual marriages then applied, under 'equal protection' to homosexual marriages.

No new laws were written by the courts, some laws were invalidated and other laws were re-written so as to comply with guaranteeing equal protection.  If any state government wants to get out of the marriage business, I presume it is free to do so as long as it does so in a manner that does not unfairly discriminate against heterosexuals or homosexuals.

You clearly have a flexible definition of 'courts enacting laws' based on whether the far right wingers who do your thinking for you tell you something is a 'court enacted law' or tell you was a correct judgement striking down an 'activist government.'  (Or whatever term they tell you a government is when it passes laws they don't like.  Tyrannical government, maybe, I can't remember.)

[Value Of Pi]

It is complicated but in my opinion, yes.  It should have not been under the purview of the federal government.  The feds were never meant to be in the law enforcement business anyway.

How could it not be in the "purview of the federal government?" The case was in the federal courts as an important U.S. constitutional issue and it ended up with SCOTUS, just as the Constitution provides. The federal courts are a hierarchy, with SCOTUS at the top. It has final say on federal court decisions. It's been that way from day one.

Are you sure you don't just have a problem with the way the government was set up back when, division of powers and so forth?

[21st Century Man]

1.Homosexual marriage is not a 'new thing.'  It is in the United States of America (though it was apparently common with some native tribes) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Equal protection didn't apply until recently because no case on gay marriage had been taken before the courts (the Supreme Court anyway) until recently.

It seems your argument is that due to 'homosexual marriage being a new thing' that the equal protection provisions don't apply.  Where does it say in anything written by the founders that only things that existed during the time of the writing of the Constitution are subject to equal protection? Because if it doesn't then that is your personal definition of 'equal protection' and not based on anything actually written.  I think your 'strict constructionists' might be very unhappy with you right now.

The Supreme Court did not 'enact' new law.  They interpreted the equal protection clause of the Constitution to strike down laws banning gay marriage.  Without these laws, gay marriage became legal, and, any laws that applied to heterosexual marriages then applied, under 'equal protection' to homosexual marriages.

No new laws were written by the courts, some laws were invalidated and other laws were re-written so as to comply with guaranteeing equal protection.  If any state government wants to get out of the marriage business, I presume it is free to do so as long as it does so in a manner that does not unfairly discriminate against heterosexuals or homosexuals.

You clearly have a flexible definition of 'courts enacting laws' based on whether the far right wingers who do your thinking for you tell you something is a 'court enacted law' or tell you was a correct judgement striking down an 'activist government.'  (Or whatever term they tell you a government is when it passes laws they don't like.  Tyrannical government, maybe, I can't remember.)

    Man, you really go off the rails sometimes, don't you?   You may have a point in some of your comments but your condescension is more than irritating.

   Equal protection didn't exist until the 14th amendment and frankly, imho, it has been used far too liberally over the past 150 years to justify the expansion of the power of the federal government.  There are situations where I think it was used correctly such as in Brown vs. Board of Education.

    I just think it would have been better if the issue of gay marriage had been left up to the people. I trust the people and I would have been completely fine with whatever decision they made.

[21st Century Man]

How could it not be in the "purview of the federal government?" The case was in the federal courts as an important U.S. constitutional issue and it ended up with SCOTUS, just as the Constitution provides. The federal courts are a hierarchy, with SCOTUS at the top. It has final say on federal court decisions. It's been that way from day one.

Are you sure you don't just have a problem with the way the government was set up back when, division of powers and so forth?

No, I don't have a problem at all with the way it was set up.  Actually to be honest, I'd have to go back and read up on Miranda before truly making a decision about it.  I've read plenty of essays (probably by people who 136 would call right-wing hacks) bemoaning the fact that the Supreme Court has turned into something it was never intended to be.  It was never intended to be the political body it is today and it certainly was never supposed to have the power it currently has.

I can't argue with 136 about this because I didn't read this stuff on websites for the most part and I have no idea where I read these dissertations but it has been part of my education.  I don't spend my days reading political websites and the like so I can't give good references.

[21st Century Man]

You must not have read that article before posting because it completely agrees with what I wrote:

Legal Application of Strict Constructionism
One of the most challenging issues of judicial procedure is applying the law when making legal decisions. While many statutes (laws) are written in very specific language, making it relatively easy in many situations to apply the law case-by-case, other laws, and the provisions of the Constitution, are rather vague. Because every legal case is unique, this poses a problem for many judges, who are left with a quandary as to interpretation.

Strict constructionists are those people who believe that every law and constitutional provision should not be subject to interpretation, but applied strictly as written. This means that, under strict constructionism, there is no room for considering the context in which the law was made, or for taking into account the specific circumstances of any individual case. The very idea of taking such a narrow view of the nation’s freedoms, obligations, and laws, is seen by many to be irrational, leading to the moniker “the doctrine of absurdity.”

"...the provisions of the Constitution are rather vague"

I believe this is appropriate right now:  You:  "durrr, durrr, durrr."

You got me!  You're right I didn't thoroughly read it and I disagree with the suggestion that under strict constructionism, there is no room for considering the context in which the law was made.  Look, I'll try to find a decent article on the subject by an author whom you might respect.  I still oppose the notion that strict constructionism is a right wing term. 

I've only read part of this following article but it appears to be unbiased.  Obviously, I'm in Jefferson's camp. Wait   Not so fast, Jefferson bought Louisiana so he wasn't acting as a strict constructionist then.  Isn't that convenient?

http://www.shmoop.com/legislative-branch/strict-constructionism-broad-constructionism.html

I'll keep looking for another article.

[Value Of Pi]

No, I don't have a problem at all with the way it was set up.  Actually to be honest, I'd have to go back and read up on Miranda before truly making a decision about it.  I've read plenty of essays (probably by people who 136 would call right-wing hacks) bemoaning the fact that the Supreme Court has turned into something it was never intended to be.  It was never intended to be the political body it is today and it certainly was never supposed to have the power it currently has.

I can't argue with 136 about this because I didn't read this stuff on websites for the most part and I have no idea where I read these dissertations but it has been part of my education.  I don't spend my days reading political websites and the like so I can't give good references.

Good enough. But if your question is, when is SCOTUS just doing its job and when is it doing someone else's job, keep in mind that if they take the case, they need to make a ruling. The ruling might mean big changes simply because of the issue at stake, something controversial like abortion, for example.

A conservative court or a "strict constructionist" court might be very tempted not to take cases like this. So is "legislating" really about choosing to deal with what's being sent their way, at least in part?

[21st Century Man]

Good enough. But if your question is, when is SCOTUS just doing its job and when is it doing someone else's job, keep in mind that if they take the case, they need to make a ruling. The ruling might mean big changes simply because of the issue at stake, something controversial like abortion, for example.

A conservative court or a "strict constructionist" court might be very tempted not to take cases like this. So is "legislating" really about choosing to deal with what's being sent their way, at least in part?

You make a good point.  Yes, I think you could say that.  A lot of the confusion has occurred since the 14th amendment was passed.  While I think equal protection is basically a good thing, let the state courts decide these matters of equal protection. It gives too much power to the federal government. However, I can see why in 1868  they felt they needed an equal protection clause in the Constitution.  Southern states simply were not going to protect the blacks as they would the whites and the dirty little secret is nor would many northern states.  It is not an easy matter to decide.  I think maybe their should have been some parameters set for a nationalized equal protection though.  The feds simply have too much power now.

[pate]

In order to be plainly written it has to be ..(tldr)..

Calling people idiots is rude or vulgar?  Shame on me!

No 'flexion on, the;
\
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AOdIVJH7tE
/
grate, Job!

[WOTR]

I won't defend Mr. Trump.  I will say that the Clinton's have had access to much more foundation money than Trump.  Look, I have no yearning to vote for the guy but he is the only one who has promised to nominate  strict constructionist justices to the courts.  That is my issue.  I wouldn't be surprised if he later changes his mind.  This election cycle sucks but I do not want to see a Clinton presidency.  She will get us involved in more wars with McCain and Graham covering her back.  She is crooked. I'm simply not going to vote for her .  Simply put, I'm voting against her more than I'm voting for Donald Trump.

I get it... However, it is interesting to note that charitynavigator does rate the Clinton foundation as a four star charity (97.5 / 100 for financial and 93 / 100 for accountability and transparency).  Because Trump runs a "private foundation" they are unable to rate it as his as the financials are not open enough and he files different tax forms than a "real" charity.  Interesting...
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=133404773


***I get this is not the issue you are voting on.  I just find it interesting that for all of the talk Donald has devoted to the Clinton foundation, he showed a major moral flaw using his foundation to pay his bills and that it is a private foundation.  I had also expected to see the Clinton foundation with a 2 star mark and 50% of their expenditures to admin rather than the reality of 87% to programs and 8.7% to admin.  I was a little disappointed that their CEO is almost half a million a year- and wish I had the time to dig and find out who that is...

[Lt.Uhura]

... Look, I have no yearning to vote for the guy but he is the only one who has promised to nominate strict constructionist justices to the courts.  That is my issue.  I wouldn't be surprised if he later changes his mind...

Then why set yourself up for disappointment?  Will he 'change his mind'?   You betcha!

...those who cite the Supreme Court as a compelling reason to vote for Trump are of the befuddling opinion that the same man who has demonstrated willful ignorance of the Constitution, who has promised to subvert the Constitution, and whose dealings with the judiciary demonstrate contempt for the Constitution, is the man who will save it...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438669/donald-trump-supreme-court-trump-card-argument-flawed-hillary-clinton-may-not-be

[Gyoza Girl]

        I just think it would have been better if the issue of gay marriage had been left up to the people. I trust the people and I would have been completely fine with whatever decision they made.

Even people like that Kentucky county clerk, Kim Davis?

[GuerrillaUnReal]

Heterosexual marriage has been an institution in civilization for thousands of years.  Homosexual marriage is a new thing.  Equal protection did not apply until recently whether right or wrong. Frankly, if I had my druthers, the government would stay out of the marriage business altogether; however, since our tax laws and such give us tax breaks and the like if we are married, there has to be some sort of recognition.  Still, it is not the business of judges to enact new law and that is exactly what the justices did in that decision.  It should have been left to the states.  If the states wanted homosexual marriage, then great. I will point out that the 10th amendment gives no proviso to the federal goverrnment to enact or make such a law.

Do you think there's a civil rights precedent here where the government can step on behalf of those who aren't being given equal status? This is one of the very few things I'm happy about in the last eight years with our government. I agree with you on state's rights issue. For instance I think each state should be able to decide whether it wants to decriminalize marijuana or not. But given that this involved the rights of citizens directly, I can appreciate the government stepping in.

I don't like to pull the civil rights card since it's being so abused and perverted right now. But given how gay couples had to face discriminatory practices in society such as weird health and legal laws, I think it's a valid case.

Plus with all due respect your religious beliefs, marriage is so nothing in a government capacity. To God it may be an abomination but to the government it should be about two or three forms they have to fill out. Also in the pragmatic sense, if two dudes or two ladies want to ruin their lives by getting married, it's no sweat off anyone else's sack.

I do appreciate your skepticism of government though. I don't want them involved in anything beyond their limited constitutionally granted role in my life.