The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

There's a bit of a difference between "What it says" and "What Justice X thinks it says". The latter is what caused 50+ years of Jim Crow laws. If you want to over-simplify it as "semantics", then, sure.
 
Well fuck then, why even have a supreme court. Bobby here knows exactly what the author's of the constitution meant when they wrote the damn thing. Lets just ask the Oracle of Walmart the next time something comes up.
 
Well, that's a completely stupid post.

Oh, wait. Clak made it. Of course it is.

As Rand Paul said - just because the folks currently sitting on the Supreme Court interpret something to be Constitutional, doesn't mean it is and doesn't mean that it can't be overturned at a later date. It's pretty simple.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']As Rand Paul said - just because the folks currently sitting on the Supreme Court interpret something to be Constitutional, doesn't mean it is and doesn't mean that it can't be overturned at a later date. It's pretty simple.[/QUOTE]

Have fun waiting for it to be overturned :rofl:
 
It's too bad bad the founders of the country didn't think ahead and write into the constitution whether every god damn thing that ever was and ever will be is constitutional.
 
Clack - you're actually in luck. You'll be glad to know that the Founding Fathers actually did think ahead and include a process within the Constitution for "every thing that ever was and ever will be". It's Article 5. Pretty spiffy of them to think ahead like that.

camoor - In this specific instance, I'm not arguing that it should or shouldn't be overturned - merely pointing out the fact that simply because majority of the current sitting Justices believe it to be Constitutional doesn't mean it is or isn't.

As far as the Constitutionality of this goes... this is one more reason I favor a full-on single-payer system. The very idea that the government now has the power to say "Buy this or get fined" should be something alarming. Sure, you like it now, as they're forcing you to give money to evil Health Insurance companies buy something you want... But what happens when a bunch of extreme right-wingers get into office and decide that it's every American's duty to own a high-powered firearm so they can defend the country in case of attack? Buy guns or get fined. Or, you know all that money we sank into a failing GM? Let's bring them back from the brink! Every American now has to buy a GM car. Failure to buy a GM car will result in a tax... penalty... feel-good payment of $5,000/year that will go into the GM general fund to help pay their debts. Ohh... Mitt Romney needs some money in his campaign fund. Let's pass a law that requires every American to buy his book (does he have a book? Isn't that a requirement for running for president now? - *edit* Oh, he does... "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness"... what a quaint little title. Sounds like something every red-white-and-blue blooded American should own...) or pay a fine.

I'm personally still pissed at FOX for taking Sarah Connor Chronicles off the air. I propose that every American be forced to buy Seasons 1 and 2 on DVD or BluRay so FOX will see the value in funding a season 3.
 
I particularly love that in the wake of natural disasters, especially the Colorado wildfire, Republicans have started to blame Obama for the incident for not spending enough to build the vehicles to stop this wildfire, especially the jets. Never mind that in the past decade, funding has been cut, due to the "overzealous liberal spending" of the federal government.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']camoor - In this specific instance, I'm not arguing that it should or shouldn't be overturned - merely pointing out the fact that simply because majority of the current sitting Justices believe it to be Constitutional doesn't mean it is or isn't.[/QUOTE]

From a legal perspective that is not a fact.

If you want to talk metaphysics may I suggest starting a new thread. Otherwise you're crossing the streams and bad things happen when you cross the streams...
 
[quote name='camoor']From a legal perspective that is not a fact.

If you want to talk metaphysics may I suggest starting a new thread. Otherwise you're crossing the streams and bad things happen when you cross the streams...[/QUOTE]

Hey it hit rid of a she demon once, maybe it can work on trolls too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jac...a-eliminates-state-funding-for-libraries.html

fuck yo' books, says Bobby Jindal.[/QUOTE]
Free book rentals are an infringement on the free market and puts bookstores out of business because who can compete with free?

Oh, and it's also communism. Suck IT LIEberal scum!:booty:

Seriously though, they pulled that shit in Boston too, although, it was a local decision and not a state one. It boggles the fucking mind.

edit:[quote name='cochesecochese']Why is Pliskin a guest? Did he disable his account?[/QUOTE]
Probably. He wanted to change his user name, but it didn't happen. Or maybe he finally got banned, but mods generally completely scrub the person's posts history as if they never existed. I'm putting my money on the former and that he'll be back.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

As far as the Constitutionality of this goes... this is one more reason I favor a full-on single-payer system. The very idea that the government now has the power to say "Buy this or get fined" should be something alarming. Sure, you like it now, as they're forcing you to give money to evil Health Insurance companies buy something you want... But what happens when a bunch of extreme right-wingers get into office and decide that it's every American's duty to own a high-powered firearm so they can defend the country in case of attack? Buy guns or get fined. Or, you know all that money we sank into a failing GM? Let's bring them back from the brink! Every American now has to buy a GM car. Failure to buy a GM car will result in a tax... penalty... feel-good payment of $5,000/year that will go into the GM general fund to help pay their debts. Ohh... Mitt Romney needs some money in his campaign fund. Let's pass a law that requires every American to buy his book (does he have a book? Isn't that a requirement for running for president now? - *edit* Oh, he does... "No Apology: The Case for American Greatness"... what a quaint little title. Sounds like something every red-white-and-blue blooded American should own...) or pay a fine.

[/QUOTE]

The government has always been able to say "buy this or get fined," but I guess you didn't realize it. Take the mortgage interest deduction, for example. A renter is basically paying an additional tax because they don't qualify for the mortgage interest deduction.

What if the government decided to charge everyone the non-insured penalty, but then offered a credit equal to that tax to everyone that purchased health insurance? Would that be OK with you?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Free book rentals are an infringement on the free market and puts bookstores out of business because who can compete with free?

Oh, and it's also communism. Suck IT LIEberal scum!:booty:

Seriously though, they pulled that shit in Boston too, although, it was a local decision and not a state one. It boggles the fucking mind.

edit:
Probably. He wanted to change his user name, but it didn't happen. Or maybe he finally got banned, but mods generally completely scrub the person's posts history as if they never existed. I'm putting my money on the former and that he'll be back.[/QUOTE]
The little weasel probably did it so that nobody could ignore him. Jokes on him.
 
[quote name='camoor']Have fun waiting for it to be overturned :rofl:[/QUOTE]

It's funny that something that more than half of Americans want repealed likely won't be? Just an awesome time we're having in this country right now.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']It's funny that something that more than half of Americans want repealed likely won't be? Just an awesome time we're having in this country right now.[/QUOTE]
This is a complete mischaracterization of sentiment on the issue. When asked in polls, you're mostly correct about how people feel about the bill, but when asked about individual aspects of the bill or if it was called something different, people are overwhelmingly in favor of it.

Nice try though.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Well, that's a completely stupid post.

Oh, wait. Clak made it. Of course it is.

As Rand Paul said - just because the folks currently sitting on the Supreme Court interpret something to be Constitutional, doesn't mean it is and doesn't mean that it can't be overturned at a later date. It's pretty simple.[/QUOTE]

So when is something constitutional?
 
[quote name='IRHari']So when is something constitutional?[/QUOTE]
Well it's certainly not when the supreme court of the land says it is, surely not. Learned people, experts in their field, of course not.

On that note, can ODD last into adulthood? :lol:;)
 
[quote name='IRHari']So when is something constitutional?[/QUOTE]

When it was actually in the Constitution in the first place. I mean shit, we can't even depend on amendments to the Constitution at this point because those are overturnable as well (18th says hi).
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']When it was actually in the Constitution in the first place.[/QUOTE]Which when the SCOTUS rules that something is constitutional, they're basically saying it's lawful as laid out by existing text, that nothing already in the constitution prevents it, otherwise it wouldn't be constitutional. That's why amendments aren't needed for every damn thing under the sun, like bobbeh here seems to think.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']When it was actually in the Constitution in the first place. I mean shit, we can't even depend on amendments to the Constitution at this point because those are overturnable as well (18th says hi).[/QUOTE]

That is the strength of our Constitution, though. The Founding Fathers had the foresight to realize that things change, and what might make perfect sense in the 18th century might not necessarily make the same sense in the 21st century. Our government's framework is highly adaptable. Technology advances. Moral codes evolve. The world changes. And thus, our government must also be ready to change with the times.
 
[quote name='Clak']Which when the SCOTUS rules that something is constitutional, they're basically saying it's lawful as laid out by existing text, that nothing already in the constitution prevents it, otherwise it wouldn't be constitutional.[/QUOTE]

So... you're fully of the belief that the Constitution, exactly as it read at the time (amendments and all), fully supported the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and that the government should have been allowed to segregate based on race?

Or was the 1954 court correct - that "Separate but Equal" laws were in violation of the 14th amendment, thus were Unconstitutional?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... you're fully of the belief that the Constitution, exactly as it read at the time (amendments and all), fully supported the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson and that the government should have been allowed to segregate based on race?

Or was the 1954 court correct - that "Separate but Equal" laws were in violation of the 14th amendment, thus were Unconstitutional?[/QUOTE]
That's the whole point of written text being open to interpretation you dingbat. It's why I made the comment about the authors thinking ahead. Not everything is written out word for word ahead of time, things have to be interpreted, and those interpretations change with time. It's what the SCOTUS does. And you should be glad that the interpretations can change, or you and Randy there would have no hope of it every being deemed unconstitutional in the future. No, the constitution doesn't change in these examples, but the people reading it do, and they're the ones who decide whether it is legal under the constitution. Is that a perfect system? No, it isn't, it's the best we have though.

You're just being your typical contrarian self. You argue this shit simply because you like to argue with people. If we all agreed with you, you'd take the other position just to stir the damn pot.
 
[quote name='camoor']Adaptable? Maybe. Highly adaptable? No.[/QUOTE]

Once upon a time, black people were 3/5th of a person, I could lynch an individual of color just because the thought crossed my mind, and only men had the right to elect our leaders. It's pretty darn adaptable.
 
[quote name='Clak']No, the constitution doesn't change in these examples, but the people reading it do, and they're the ones who decide whether it is legal under the constitution.[/QUOTE]

Here's the deal though - you have two different counts (The Plessy V. Ferguson court and the Brown v Board of Education court). They both gave two interpretations of the Constitution (in particular, the 14th amendment). These interpretations are the exact opposite of one another... thus, only one can be correct. One court made the correct ruling, one court made an incorrect ruling.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Probably. He wanted to change his user name, but it didn't happen. Or maybe he finally got banned, but mods generally completely scrub the person's posts history as if they never existed. I'm putting my money on the former and that he'll be back.[/QUOTE]

Oh man after you pointed that out I looked up the last of his posts. He wants to be called 'EattheRich'

Defends them fucking tooth and nail, but he wants to eat them. Nice. Real nice.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Oh man after you pointed that out I looked up the last of his posts. He wants to be called 'EattheRich'

Defends them fucking tooth and nail, but he wants to eat them. Nice. Real nice.[/QUOTE]
Oh to be a mod for a day....:lol:
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Once upon a time, black people were 3/5th of a person, I could lynch an individual of color just because the thought crossed my mind, and only men had the right to elect our leaders. It's pretty darn adaptable.[/QUOTE]

It took hundreds of years just to get to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. It was baby steps at a snails pace, it was two steps forward one step back all the way.

So was it adaptable? ...yes

Highly adaptable? Hell no.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Here's the deal though - you have two different counts (The Plessy V. Ferguson court and the Brown v Board of Education court). They both gave two interpretations of the Constitution (in particular, the 14th amendment). These interpretations are the exact opposite of one another... thus, only one can be correct. One court made the correct ruling, one court made an incorrect ruling.[/QUOTE]

How do we know which one is the correct ruling?

[quote name='IRHari']So when is something constitutional?[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='camoor']It took hundreds of years just to get to the civil rights movement of the 1960s. It was baby steps at a snails pace, it was two steps forward one step back all the way.

So was it adaptable? ...yes

Highly adaptable? Hell no.[/QUOTE]

You're wrong, but you obviously have your mind made up, so I don't really know what to tell you. With a single decision from the Supreme Court of this land, something that is legal can be made illegal and vice verse. That's pretty damn adaptable. In 1960s, people were having back alley abortions with wire hangers and lying about being raped.
 
[quote name='IRHari']How do we know which one is the correct ruling?[/QUOTE]

Interesting question. First, we have to acknowledge that one of those two ruling was incorrect to begin with. There are some folks on here that seem to virtually be arguing that the Supreme Court is never wrong and that, somehow, both of these complete opposite decisions are correct.

How do we know which is the correct ruling? At the time of the ruling, it could be a difficult call. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and I hope we can look at the original ruling (Plessy, not Obamacare) and see that it was incorrect. (again, unless you're one of those folks who thinks the Supreme Court is never wrong).

How do we know the Obamacare decision was the correct ruling? Simply because the Supreme Court said so?

If that's the case, then I can only assume the same folks who think this also think that the Citizens United ruling was 100% correct. Because the Supreme Court said so... and if they say so, it has to be true.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Interesting question. First, we have to acknowledge that one of those two ruling was incorrect to begin with. There are some folks on here that seem to virtually be arguing that the Supreme Court is never wrong and that, somehow, both of these complete opposite decisions are correct.

How do we know which is the correct ruling? At the time of the ruling, it could be a difficult call. Obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and I hope we can look at the original ruling (Plessy, not Obamacare) and see that it was incorrect. (again, unless you're one of those folks who thinks the Supreme Court is never wrong).

How do we know the Obamacare decision was the correct ruling? Simply because the Supreme Court said so?

If that's the case, then I can only assume the same folks who think this also think that the Citizens United ruling was 100% correct. Because the Supreme Court said so... and if they say so, it has to be true.[/QUOTE]

Again, what makes you come to the conclusion that the original ruling was wrong? THat's the fundamental question that needs to be addressed.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Again, what makes you come to the conclusion that the original ruling was wrong? THat's the fundamental question that needs to be addressed.[/QUOTE]

Is your argument that the original ruling was correct and the second ruling was wrong?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Is your argument that the original ruling was correct and the second ruling was wrong?[/QUOTE]
God you are just precious.

See, I think the conservative mindset is that everything must be right or wrong. It has to be labeled and future opinions are judged according to that.

Supreme Court rulings just exist. Right or wrong doesn't matter. We may disagree with them but that doesn't make them right or wrong; they just are.

I could be wrong in this interpretation but I think this might be what irhari is getting at.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Is your argument that the original ruling was correct and the second ruling was wrong?[/QUOTE]

I"m asking you a question. You agree with Rand that just b/c a few people on the SCOTUS rule on something doesn't make it constitutional or unconstitutional.

I'm wondering what tells you whether or not something is constitutional/unconstitutional, since the SCOTUS rulings don't seem to do that.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']You're wrong, but you obviously have your mind made up, so I don't really know what to tell you. With a single decision from the Supreme Court of this land, something that is legal can be made illegal and vice verse. That's pretty damn adaptable. In 1960s, people were having back alley abortions with wire hangers and lying about being raped.[/QUOTE]

However - how often does it happen in practice? Courts are notoriously loathe to overturn precedence.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Supreme Court rulings just exist. Right or wrong doesn't matter. We may disagree with them but that doesn't make them right or wrong; they just are.[/QUOTE]

...

[quote name='camoor']If you want to talk metaphysics may I suggest starting a new thread. Otherwise you're crossing the streams and bad things happen when you cross the streams...[/QUOTE]


______

[quote name='IRHari']I"m asking you a question. You agree with Rand that just b/c a few people on the SCOTUS rule on something doesn't make it constitutional or unconstitutional.

I'm wondering what tells you whether or not something is constitutional/unconstitutional, since the SCOTUS rulings don't seem to do that.[/QUOTE]

Should a Supreme Court ruling be the definitive answer to that question though? Obviously, it's not, as a different Supreme Court ruling can easily change a previous one.

So, you tell me - what is the definitive answer as to if something is constitutional or not?
 
You began the conversation about SCOTUS rulings not being the answer as to what is constitutional/unconstitutional.

So again, you should answer what, un-SCOTUS related, determines whether something is constitutional or not.

I'm not sure why you're dodging this.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']You're wrong, but you obviously have your mind made up, so I don't really know what to tell you. With a single decision from the Supreme Court of this land, something that is legal can be made illegal and vice verse. That's pretty damn adaptable. In 1960s, people were having back alley abortions with wire hangers and lying about being raped.[/QUOTE]

I am going to cut in here a bit if you don't mind. Just because a person can change legal->illegal doesn't make something adaptable. If you used that as a measure dictatorships are adaptable, since they can do the same, though power never shifts against the favor of the ruler. Moving on however, even beyond that, our governments framework, which I take to mean the interplay between our constitution/branches of government, then I ask what standard you are looking at. Because in terms of good democratic frameworks, the US has been outclassed for quite sometime by countries like South Africa, where the government made a concerted effort to embrace human rights and have an independent judiciary, something not even hinted or pushed for here. There are some bad things for conservatives, such as mandating universal health car, abortion rights, and a legal recourse for citizens to have a say on economic affairs, but they have more positive rights than we do here and more avenues of recourse to stop injustice. But we don't even need to stop there, must I point to our brother to the norths 1982 Charter of Rights? Man we have been out smoked since the 1950's when the European Convention on Human Rights was adopted. All of these ensure more judicial rights than the constitution ever did. Hell man, Scalia even said the Soviet Constitution was better than ours. Scalia!!

Looking beyond just the courts specifically, our country's framework has more problems. In every democratic country, we have the most rigid, don't believe me look at any other countries rules on amending the constitution, easier than the us. The point is our constitution is old, and it is showing in every branch of government, especially in our judiciary, where it is starting to get looked at as too narrow to matter, and is being seen more and more irrelevant. So while in the US it may have power, in other countries it is nothing more than a kitschy thing to look at every now and again. So other than your opinion that it can render a law from legal to illegal, our framework is middling at best right now. Our government is adaptable, though not greatly, in fact we probable rank near the bottom, amongst countries that have either collapsed politically are are close to. Again if you have a different opinion of adaptable, I would be glad to hear it, but conventionally you are nearly completely wrong. We still have a leg up on yugoslav.... oh wait. All kidding aside, we still are in a better position that the say the Ukraine, but we best change before we get there.

Sorry for any misspellings, I got quite a bit of whisky in my veins right now.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Blah blah blah

Sorry for any misspellings, I got quite a bit of whisky in my veins right now.[/QUOTE]

Wow, there's a huge freakin' surprise...go barrel into a fast food chain or something...

70-fail-1.jpg
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Yeah, and I'm still waiting for my answer about which Supreme Court was right regarding Plessy/Brown.[/QUOTE]

Heres how this conversation went:

UncleBob: Just because the SCOTUS says something is constitutional doesn't mean it is.

Me: So how do you know whether something is constitutional or not?

UncleBob: So how do you know whether something is constitutional or not?

;)

Again, still unsure why you're not giving an answer to my question.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Again, still unsure why you're not giving an answer to my question.[/QUOTE]

Again, still unsure why you're not answering my question.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Again, still unsure why you're not answering my question.[/QUOTE]

Well I asked you first, so go ahead and answer first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top