• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Obama Nominates Merrick Garland for SCOTUS

You really aren't getting it. Originalism is a method of interpretation, results be damned. Read up on Scalia's Fourth and Sixth amendment opinions, for example. The results were quite contrary to the results desired by "conservative" politics.
I'll never agree with "originalists" approval of tyranny of the majority. What did originalists think of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation? That was a hell of an executive order, huh?
 
Yeah PH I have no idea what you're trying to say. The concept of originalism is very simple, you seem to be confusing it with something else.

Also definitely not accurate to say Scalia followed textualism and originalism "results be damned." But he did indeed attempt to portray himself as ideologically consistent, which I appreciated, and did often cross party lines on cases involving the rights of criminal defendants.
 
I don't think you understood what I posted. The Constitution has multiple provisions adopted over multiple time periods. "Original" may be cobbled together from very different, contrasting time periods. The Constitution also outlines a process by which it is to be interpreted by different people over time. It's problematic, but let's not act like it's not what the founding fathers intended.

This is way simpler than you're trying to make it. Originalism is the idea that words mean what they meant when they became law, not what they mean in common usage now. Thomas is way more of a committed originalist than Scalia, and a lot of his opinions provide great examples of it.

For example, Thomas says that the word "commerce" was understood at the time of the founding to mean exclusively trade and did not include things like manufacturing, mining, agriculture, etc. Therefore Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce today should not apply to things like minimum wages for workers because workers are involved in manufacture, and not trade. The idea is that the fact that that in common usage today the word commerce has taken on a meaning that includes manufacturing cannot mean that manufacturing gets added into the Constitution based on a mere redefinition.

Originalism has some surface logical appeal but can lead to some absurd results, like the constitutionality of flogging, which is why Scalia described himself as a "faint-hearted originalist"
 
Last edited:
You really aren't getting it. Originalism is a method of interpretation, results be damned. Read up on Scalia's Fourth and Sixth amendment opinions, for example. The results were quite contrary to the results desired by "conservative" politics.

Do you think pocket Constitution crowd follows a "results be damned" method of interpretation?

MM, I'm not sure what to tell you so I'll just leave it.
 
I find it pretty amusing to hear liberals talking about disrespecting the "intent" of the constitution, considering that liberals generally don't give 2 shits about constitutional intent, preferring instead to interpret the constitution according to what they think is right and just. On those latter terms, a senate delaying for 11 months is less offensive to constitutional intent than, for example, the judiciary reading the due process clause to somehow give women the unfettered right to have an abortion until the point of viability in her pregnancy.

Are you a "there's no such thing as substantive due process" guy? Just curious.
 
You really aren't getting it. Originalism is a method of interpretation, results be damned. Read up on Scalia's Fourth and Sixth amendment opinions, for example. The results were quite contrary to the results desired by "conservative" politics.

Scalia was a "faint-hearted" originalist, at best. And while his brand of originalism is certainly a useful way to look at interpreting individual phrases in the Constitution, it ends up disproving itself when it considers the Constitution as a whole.

It was almost certainly not the Founder's intent that the 2016 Supreme Court interpret the Constitution using 1789 definitions for words in the document.

If we are going to allow the definition of "arms" to include weapons that didn't exist in 1789 then surely we can allow the definition of "liberty" to include rights that didn't exist in 1789.
 
Why would you nominate your best guy when you know that person will be obstructed? Pubs don't care about how obstruction looks to the public or they would have stopped it years ago. Why burn your best nominee just to make a point, when the best nominee has a better chance of passing once the election is over?

Pretty big game of chicken going on right now. If Obama truly believes everyone gets shot down, then he shouldn't nominate his best possible candidate. There's no telling what might be discovered (Long Dong Silver?). In that case, Obama should nominate Goodwin Liu and make 'Pubs marginalize Asians.

If Obama thinks they're bluffing and will cave, he should nominate Sri (97-0, 2013), Kelly (96-0, 2013), or Jacqueline Nguyen (91-3, 2012). All are in their late 40s, early 50s.

Trump's already blown his Art of the Deal shtick on justices. He bullshits his way out of details by saying he wants to keep his cards close to the vest, but has specifically named Diane Sykes and Bill Pryor as potential Trump nominees. Some hapless Dem Senate flunky whose boss is on the Judiciary Committee and not up for re-election has already started digging up dirt.

Dems may gain control the Senate in 2017, but they won't get to 60 seats. Cruz likely will filibuster any HRC or Bernie nominee, whether he loses in the primary or general election. Nasty, bitter guy who hates both Dems and the GOP.
 
This nominee will be among the most scrutinized in history. If Obama nominates someone with a super liberal paper trail, the Republicans will use it both as grounds for delaying the confirmation hearing (which they will do regardless) and as a referendum against the left to appeal to independent voters in the general.

Mid-term elections have consequences too.
 
It makes me downright angry what Cruz and Rubio have said about "the next POTUS will get to nominate somebody".

No you fucking idiots, the current POTUS will nominate somebody because that's his duty as the POTUS. The job description doesn't say "if the POTUS is in his last year of his last term then he will wait until the next POTUS is in line", it says the POTUS will nominate somebody.

Whether or not the Pubs want to obstruct is of their own volition, but Obama will certainly nominate somebody for the SCOTUS because it's his job.
 
I'll never agree with "originalists" approval of tyranny of the majority. What did originalists think of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation? That was a hell of an executive order, huh?

LOL. Really? I think you can find a better example than a largely unenforceable edict handed down in the middle of the Civil War.
 
The next POTUS is probably going to get to nominate some people too.

This is what pisses me off about the primary system because there is no way most of those guys believe that Obama should wait but it's something you have to say to get the nomination.
 
The next POTUS is probably going to get to nominate some people too.

This is what pisses me off about the primary system because there is no way most of those guys believe that Obama should wait but it's something you have to say to get the nomination.

I mean it's not the fault of the primary system, it's the fault of the American public for wanting politicians to take those stances. If they were unpopular stances, they wouldn't be taken
 
I mean it's not the fault of the primary system, it's the fault of the American public for wanting politicians to take those stances. If they were unpopular stances, they wouldn't be taken

Yep. The Senators have to take that stance now too or they get primaried.
 
Yeah, there's a reason a racist, sexist, chauvinist is leading the polling in the Republican party. He represents most of their ideals.
 
I agree that there's a mechanism for amending it, but like I said on another thread earlier this week - when in this era of polarization that has been increasingly bad since the 1980's will we ever have an opportunity to amend the Constitution in any meaningful, substantive way?

I get your point, but the bolded language made me laugh. As though there was any way to possibly disagree with this stance.
 
Yeah, there's a reason a racist, sexist, chauvinist is leading the polling in the Republican party. He represents most of their ideals.
What three adjectives would you use to describe the leader of the polling in the Democratic Party? Do these represent most of the ideals of the people voting for her? Or more personally, do they represent your ideals?
 
The next POTUS is probably going to get to nominate some people too.

This is what pisses me off about the primary system because there is no way most of those guys believe that Obama should wait but it's something you have to say to get the nomination.

This is the interesting part. If RBG wants to screw with the Pubs, she'll step down tomorrow. Enjoy that one, Mitch.
 
This nominee will be among the most scrutinized in history. If Obama nominates someone with a super liberal paper trail, the Republicans will use it both as grounds for delaying the confirmation hearing (which they will do regardless) and as a referendum against the left to appeal to independent voters in the general.

Mid-term elections have consequences too.

No kidding. I couldn't believe she said that. Last time we had an election, the left lost. Big. So don't run that tripe up the flagpole.
 
You really aren't getting it. Originalism is a method of interpretation, results be damned. Read up on Scalia's Fourth and Sixth amendment opinions, for example. The results were quite contrary to the results desired by "conservative" politics.

June: You're not focusing on the outcomes you want and then working your way backwards to find a basis for your preferred conclusion. A horrible liberal you would make.
 
No kidding. I couldn't believe she said that. Last time we had an election, the left lost. Big. So don't run that tripe up the flagpole.

Then maybe those elected senators should you know, do the job they were elected to do. I don't have a problem with them voting down an Obama nominee, but I have a huge problem with the apparent strategy of blocking hearings and an up or down vote on a nominee. I
 
Back
Top