Forgot to change name!

[RoadRunner79]

To be fair, Trump had already published a list of prospects. From the Left's perspective, judges endorsed by the Federalist Society would be interchangeable.

I agree, that it's actually not that big of deal.   But still funny none the less...  Especially when it was butchered that badly.   However most of Trumps choices, seem to be conservative judges, by which I mean conservative in their view of proper judicial procedure and interpreting the constitution, as opposed to progressive and looking to re-write it from the bench.  In which case their individual views should not come into play as much.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To be fair, Trump had already published a list of prospects. From the Left's perspective, judges endorsed by the Federalist Society would be interchangeable.

I agree, that it's actually not that big of deal.   But still funny none the less...  Especially when it was butchered that badly.   However most of Trumps choices, seem to be conservative judges, by which I mean conservative in their view of proper judicial procedure and interpreting the constitution, as opposed to progressive and looking to re-write it from the bench.  In which case their individual views should not come into play as much.

There are no conservative justices, only those who read the Constitution according to how it was meant to be read by those who wrote it and as it was passed into law. That's called non-partisan which is what the judiciary is supposed to be. Those who believe that the constitution requires interpretation, as opposed to its plain reading, are partisan left-wings activists.

[RoadRunner79]

To find out exactly what (idea)  is being proposed in this particular case. To see if the idea is being accurately represented here or blown out of proportion because of who is involved. Does this seem unreasonable to you?

You don't seem to find interest in that sort of thing when you're putting something out. Your OP for example. Are you holding me to a different standard than you hold yourself to? I refer to your post #8 where you indicate that you are more interested in the idea than who it is from.

I don't think that I am.   Could you be more specific on where you think this is the case?
I'm not against providing the source information, if that is what you are saying.  To discuss the idea that was put forth accurately and not just the person who said it.

[Mister Agenda]

I agree, that it's actually not that big of deal.   But still funny none the less...  Especially when it was butchered that badly.   However most of Trumps choices, seem to be conservative judges, by which I mean conservative in their view of proper judicial procedure and interpreting the constitution, as opposed to progressive and looking to re-write it from the bench.  In which case their individual views should not come into play as much.

There are no conservative justices, only those who read the Constitution according to how it was meant to be read by those who wrote it and as it was passed into law. That's called non-partisan which is what the judiciary is supposed to be. Those who believe that the constitution requires interpretation, as opposed to its plain reading, are partisan left-wings activists.

In your expert opinion as a constitutional lawyer?

---

You don't seem to find interest in that sort of thing when you're putting something out. Your OP for example. Are you holding me to a different standard than you hold yourself to? I refer to your post #8 where you indicate that you are more interested in the idea than who it is from.

I don't think that I am.   Could you be more specific on where you think this is the case?
I'm not against providing the source information, if that is what you are saying.  To discuss the idea that was put forth accurately and not just the person who said it.

You provided the source. The most biased to the far-right source I know of. If Breitbart puts out something true, it's only because it's possible for something that really happened to fit their narrative on occasion. It's a propaganda site. When that's pointed out, you move to 'it's the idea that's important, not the source'. If I posted something from 'The Militant', I'd expect to be questioned on it, and my response would be to go looking for non-biased source for confirmation. I wouldn't argue that it's the idea that's important, I'd show that I was willing to back up my contention with a little bit more homework.

[Crossless2.0]

There are no conservative justices, only those who read the Constitution according to how it was meant to be read by those who wrote it and as it was passed into law. That's called non-partisan which is what the judiciary is supposed to be. Those who believe that the constitution requires interpretation, as opposed to its plain reading, are partisan left-wings activists.

In your expert opinion as a constitutional lawyer?

I'm sure it was a non-partisan, plain reading that resulted in a SC decision that effectively decided a presidential election but was in no way to be taken as the Court establishing a precedent. 

[Cecelia]

Of course they'd complain about whoever President Idiot nominated. All of his potential choices were terrible. If he actually had good choices, people wouldn't complain. I don't see how this is funny, except perhaps to people without a healthy sense of humor.

[Aegon]

I agree, that it's actually not that big of deal.   But still funny none the less...  Especially when it was butchered that badly.   However most of Trumps choices, seem to be conservative judges, by which I mean conservative in their view of proper judicial procedure and interpreting the constitution, as opposed to progressive and looking to re-write it from the bench.  In which case their individual views should not come into play as much.

There are no conservative justices, only those who read the Constitution according to how it was meant to be read by those who wrote it and as it was passed into law. That's called non-partisan which is what the judiciary is supposed to be. Those who believe that the constitution requires interpretation, as opposed to its plain reading, are partisan left-wings activists.

It's law. If there was no "correct" way to interpret legal text aside from plain, literal reading then about 50% of lawyers in every practice should be out of a job. It's always interpretive. The Constitution should be no different.

I'd also argue that the document is old and based on an INCREDIBLY different society. Itd be rather asinine not to keep it up with the times and the way we've progressed. No law or philosophy is infallible. Everything should be scrutinized. It's not wrong to do that, it's smart. The document was written at a time where the only firearms people had access to were muskets and black people were enslaved. It changes a lot. Not taking it literally is a valid method of analyzing the document.

The judges aren't dumb, though. It's no coincidence that "literalists" are conservative in every facet, even things separate from constitutional law. It's no coincidence that the interpreters are liberal, even about things separate from constitutional law. It's heavily partisan both ways. Don't try to justify the partisanship of your side.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In your expert opinion as a constitutional lawyer?

Not mine...

“The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments…It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” – Federalist Paper 78 (my emphasis)

---

It's law. If there was no "correct" way to interpret legal text aside from plain, literal reading then about 50% of lawyers in every practice should be out of a job. It's always interpretive. The Constitution should be no different.

That is only the case when the legislators write unclear laws. Nothing in the constitution is unclear.

I'd also argue that the document is old and based on an INCREDIBLY different society. Itd be rather asinine not to keep it up with the times and the way we've progressed. ...The document was written at a time where the only firearms people had access to were muskets and black people were enslaved. It changes a lot. Not taking it literally is a valid method of analyzing the document.

Irrelevant. The Constitution provides for the means to adapt to future circumstances: the amendment process. Not contorting the language to mean what it did not mean when it was written and as amended.

[Angrboda]

In your expert opinion as a constitutional lawyer?

Not mine...

“The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments…It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” – Federalist Paper 78 (my emphasis)

The line between the two seems to depend on whether you are a liberal or a conservative, rather than upon any demonstrable fact.

[Aegon]

It's law. If there was no "correct" way to interpret legal text aside from plain, literal reading then about 50% of lawyers in every practice should be out of a job. It's always interpretive. The Constitution should be no different.

That is only the case when the legislators write unclear laws. Nothing in the constitution is unclear.

All that argument tells me is that you'd be a bad lawyer.

I'd also argue that the document is old and based on an INCREDIBLY different society. Itd be rather asinine not to keep it up with the times and the way we've progressed. ...The document was written at a time where the only firearms people had access to were muskets and black people were enslaved. It changes a lot. Not taking it literally is a valid method of analyzing the document.

Irrelevant. The Constitution provides for the means to adapt to future circumstances: the amendment process. Not contorting the language to mean what it did not mean when it was written and as amended.

But it's all about historical relativity. Regardless of what the writers meant then, it's imperative to ensure that the document remains relevant. Going by the literal reading of the Second Amendment is asinine today, for precisely the reason I provided: guns have changed. If you read the Constitution, it has to be through the lens of the current day, otherwise you're enforcing 1789 law in 2018. Which is stupid.