What's new
By:

Antonin Scalia

dalamon said:
what has the quality of information obtained through torture been like?
Click to expand...

Maybe very high quality. Maybe low quality.

I doubt any of us jazzfanzers work for the CIA.
 
dalamon said:
the guy's served for America, so it'd make sense to take his word for it.
Click to expand...
Please. I love gf and value his opinion. But not because he was in the armed forces.

Plenty of douchebags have been in the military and I guarantee there is plenty of disagreement from one soldier to the next on every topic there is. Including torture
 
Has Bern ever had a real job in his life, outside of politics? Because I can't find any info telling me he has.
 
I'm against torturing people period. That said it is not the courts place to impose that unless supported by law. I believe it is under the Geneva convention, UN treaties and US Law. I don't accept the whole "non-state-actors aren't protected by the Geneva convention" argument. IIRC the interpretation comes down to whether you think that a person must be explicitly listed in order to be protected or if people are protected unless explicitly exempted from protection. I tend to believe that the state must be granted powers by law and not presume to have them especially when it comes to issues of human and civil rights.
 
Sorry, anyone in ISIS doesn't deserve any shred of humanity. Torture the **** out of them.
 
Siro said:
Regardless, you're presenting your opinion of how the Constitution should be interpreted as if it's an established fact. I for one, think that treating it like a religious document handed down by God, all while ignoring its historical context and ours, is patently absurd (and practically impossible). But that's just my opinion, and I don't present it as anything more.
Click to expand...

he point is, the Constitution has to be interpreted, the question is how can we do it in a way that is consistent and meaningful. I subscribe to the viewpoint that to keep the integrity of the foundation upon which our Nation was created, we should interpret that document to mean what our founders meant. Not what we think it should mean. It is too easy to make the determination that what we think should be is the same thing our founding fathers would have thought, because, hey, there are reasonable just like me, right? If instead, we look at historical context, we can get closer to a consistent and correct interpretation.

If we determine that the founding fathers missed the boat, we should amend the Constitution. Not just reinterpret it to mean what we think it should. If that is how we approach the review of a legal document, then every legal document becomes suspect. Such interpretation leads to judicial political bias, or judicial activism which should not occur IMO. It is the job of the legislature to change the law, and yes, the Constitution breaks out the 3 branches and their duties.

There is no such thing as a perfect interpretation, but the originalist's view keeps the bedrock that our Nation was based on. I just don't understand the bashing on Scalia for upholding the law as written as close as he could interpret it. If we need to change the law, let's change it.
 
JAZZGASM said:
he point is, the Constitution has to be interpreted, the question is how can we do it in a way that is consistent and meaningful. I subscribe to the viewpoint that to keep the integrity of the foundation upon which our Nation was created, we should interpret that document to mean what our founders meant. Not what we think it should mean. It is too easy to make the determination that what we think should be is the same thing our founding fathers would have thought, because, hey, there are reasonable just like me, right? If instead, we look at historical context, we can get closer to a consistent and correct interpretation.

If we determine that the founding fathers missed the boat, we should amend the Constitution. Not just reinterpret it to mean what we think it should. If that is how we approach the review of a legal document, then every legal document becomes suspect. Such interpretation leads to judicial political bias, or judicial activism which should not occur IMO. It is the job of the legislature to change the law, and yes, the Constitution breaks out the 3 branches and their duties.

There is no such thing as a perfect interpretation, but the originalist's view keeps the bedrock that our Nation was based on. I just don't understand the bashing on Scalia for upholding the law as written as close as he could interpret it. If we need to change the law, let's change it.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is assuming there was a single "originalist's view" shared by the Founding Fathers. There were constitutional interpretation disagreements among the founders before the constitution was even adopted by the states.
 
Howard said:
No, it shows that your sentence was awful grammatically. But hey, blame it on my reading comprehension. ;)

Damn Canadian education obviously. ;)
Click to expand...

Nope, it's grammatically sound.


I don't think any of us actually have access to this information, so I don't think we could accurately answer that.
Click to expand...
nah, there's tons of info on it. It's actually quite a massive debacle.

EDIT: thanks Siro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top