The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
Top five cliches that liberals use to avoid real arguments
Poast new message in this thread
Date: May 1st, 2012 11:42 AM Author: emerald exciting address http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/top-five-cliches-liberals-use-to-avoid-real-arguments/2012/04/27/gIQAFR1zlT_story.html
Complete article:
http://www.aei.org/article/politics-and-public-opinion/top-five-cliches-that-liberals-use-to-avoid-real-arguments/ |
Date: May 1st, 2012 11:44 AM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort Lol @ this idiot defending a debunk theory like originalism and executive power aggrandizement. He sounds incredibly butthurt over Rasul v Bush, hamdan v Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v Bush:
It is dogma among liberals that sophisticated people understand that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document.” The idea was largely introduced into the political bloodstream by Woodrow Wilson and his allies, who were desperate to be free of the constraints of the founders’ vision. Wilson explained that he preferred an evolving, “organic,” “Darwinian” Constitution that empowered progressives to breathe whatever meaning they wished into it. It is a wildly ideological view of the nature of our political system.
It is also a font of unending hypocrisy. After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, conservatives argued that the country needed to adapt to a new asymmetrical warfare against non-state actors who posed an existential threat. They believed they were working within the bounds of the Constitution. But even if they were stretching things, why shouldn’t that be acceptable — if our Constitution is supposed to evolve with the times? |
 |
Date: May 1st, 2012 11:51 AM Author: cowardly flatulent karate theater stage I think that the theory of an evolving Constitution was established when the drafters incorporated a process of amendment.
Really, your post is pseudo-intellectual fluff. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:26 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs This. I cannot fathom what twisted logic one has to apply to justify the judiciary "evolving" the constitution when we already have a fucking process in place. Just admit it: When libtarded, and conservatives to a lesser extent, justices see something they don't like, they want to change it themselves rather than risk a pesky more democratic system. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588910) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:27 PM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort You take originalism seriously? That's the epitome of twisted logic. Things change--the meaning of liberty, for example, in 1791 and today are radically different. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588912) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:28 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs Then fucking amend it you retard. Do you not understand that if you abide by the notion that we can change what the constitution means at will, then you may aswell not have it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588919) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:28 PM Author: hideous federal cuck thats patently absurd considering shit gets called unconstitutional all the time (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588923) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:29 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
lol you're flame right |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:30 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs 1) Justice sees something they don't like
2) reads into the "living" document
3) Manufactures a rationalization why the thing they don't like is unconstitutional
I should repeat, this is not a libtard-only trait. But it is a fundamental flaw in how the judiciary has, and does, operate. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:31 PM Author: hideous federal cuck look, by definition, if we didnt have a constitution/werent a constitutional state nothing wld b called unconstitutional. so ur example basically proves that its not true that "we might as well not have a constitution" since something was. very obviously different outcomes, not sure why this is so hard (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588944) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:32 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
lol brother your're a fagg'ot |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:33 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs Holy shit
"very obviously different outcomes"
No, just instead of "unconstitutional" it would read "Breyer and 5 other justices don't like this law". The outcome (if people bought it) would be the same.
The consitution would only serve as a tool to lend legitimacy to the process for 80IQ tards. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:35 PM Author: hideous federal cuck o rite so when u say "not have a constitution" wat u mean is that INSTEAD of a constitution, we'd have the supreme court as a kind of superlegislation. that seems like only 1 of many ways that things might work out if we didnt have a constitution. it wld have been nice 4 u 2 b honest abt that up front, but now ive gotten it out of u. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588968) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:37 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs That is the point from the start: If you believe that the consitution is a "living" document that the justics can interpret at will then they can basically do whatever they want.
Now, they have to play politics so there is a constraint in not pissing off the general populace or Obama, but beyond that... |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:39 PM Author: hideous federal cuck lol. so basically your argument rests on an unsupported inference which is basically a restatement of what you want to conclude. do you have any reason to think that "living document"-jurisprudence justices are "do[ing] whatever they want" or that "originalists" aren't? you're a college freshman, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588996) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:45 PM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort Cow Goes Moo doesn't understand what original public meaning originalism is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589033) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:45 PM Author: hideous federal cuck wont surprise ne1 whos read him try 2 defend austrian econ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589034) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort You actually think that Justices interpret the 8th Amendment based on what the words of "cruel or unusual mean", ha? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589000) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:32 PM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort Article Five amendment process is both arduous and rare.
Your accusing something that liberal justices do, but turn a blind eye to the Rehnquist Court's reading-out-of-their-faggot-asses "state sovereign immunity" under the 11th amendment (see the Seminole Tribe line of cases). |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:34 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
That's fairly implied in the federalist structure of our government you stupid nigger.
"But so is abortion!!!" |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:34 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs "I should repeat, this is not a libtard-only trait. But it is a fundamental flaw in how the judiciary has, and does, operate."
Reading is step one in being able to discuss legal matters. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:36 PM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort Nope. Not saying that. It is simply a function of human rationality--we cannot be constrained by doctrine. We inevitably are deciding and litigating cases with the background of contemporary norms and ideas. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588980) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:36 PM Author: Painfully honest milk do you think the second amendment gives me the right to own nuclear arms? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588975) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs I think that if people were honest and stuck with the entire notion of the consistution that in 1950 there would have been an amendment passed banning personal ownership of nukes. i.e. fucking evolving the constitution the way it was intended. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588998) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM Author: Painfully honest milk non-responsive. there has been no such amendment. I agree that there should have been. the question is, in the absence of such an amendment, can I own a nuke? the fact that ther SHOULD HAVE BEEN shitloads of amendments is the problem with your position. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:45 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs Such amendments were not made exactly because people bought into this living consitution bullshit. They knew that under this context, no amendment re: nukes was needed. Going back and saying "Assuming we did not have a living constitution, would people have nukes?" needs to also include what would probably have been the historical amendments and changes that would occur if people did not buy the "living" bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589032) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:47 PM Author: Painfully honest milk i thought you were offering a workable judicial philosophy for today. are you saying we'd have to rewrite all of american history for your approach to work? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589042) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:48 PM Author: hideous federal cuck haha (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589047) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 1:00 PM Author: Painfully honest milk I'm honestly interested in your answer. is your position merely a gripe about history? if so, cool, I guess I agree. if not, how do you deal with the absolute language used in the bill of rights? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:46 PM Author: cowardly flatulent karate theater stage What is this? The fact that we have thousands of Federal laws is evidence that you don't need an amendment for every possible issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589035) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:48 PM Author: Painfully honest milk i'm pretty sure regular legislation doesnt trump constitutional rights mang (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589045) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:53 PM Author: cowardly flatulent karate theater stage Obviously not brother, but federal legislation imposes laws that is able to restrict rights.
Take, for instance, our idea of freedom of speech. How free is it? You only need look to slander and libel laws to realize that speech is not completely free. You can also look to Federal Securities laws with regard to material misstatements to see that certain statements result in legal liabilities. This is in contrast with our theory of "freedom of speech" but not actually in contrast with the reality of freedom of speech.
Our fundamental freedoms are limited by Constitutionally-enacted laws all the time. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:56 PM Author: Painfully honest milk it seems like these examples support the idea of an evolving constitution rather than congress's ability to limit constitutional rights through regular legislation.
|
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 1:04 PM Author: cowardly flatulent karate theater stage A statute the empowers an Administrative Agency cannot reasonably be called evolutionary simply because it grants that agency rulemaking powers.
(this is effectively what the Consitution does with Congress) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 1:09 PM Author: Painfully honest milk i disagree with your agency rulemaking analogy, but even if i accept it, the language of the first amendment (I guess the "intelligible principle" in your analogy) is plainly inconsistent with any restriction on speech. the obvious solution is that the constitution cant be interpreted literally, and this is the conclusion that every person who thinks about the issue comes to, even Scalia (Thomas, not so sure). Either you havent been to law school or youre flame |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 1:16 PM Author: cowardly flatulent karate theater stage Bro, it was obviously fucking flame with my slander/libel comment.
Constitution doesn't have ANYTHING to do with tort actions between people. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 1:18 PM Author: Painfully honest milk I'm xo's designated straight man (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589162) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 1:19 PM Author: cowardly flatulent karate theater stage You were an unfortunate victim. I was hoping SSM or Cow Goes Moo would attack so I could get some lulz out of them (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589174) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 1:21 PM Author: Painfully honest milk all good man. SSM is one of my favorite posters actually. I think cow goes moo is probably flame too (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589193) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:19 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
Brilliant article, tyvmft. |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:33 PM Author: Massive Stead (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588961) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:27 PM Author: hideous federal cuck To be genuinely fair, that's retarded. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588913) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:28 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
Missppelled "completely true and scarily accurate" |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:30 PM Author: hideous federal cuck no i dont think i did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588935) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:32 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs you post above outs you as a tard, just leave this thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588949) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:33 PM Author: hideous federal cuck lol @ cgm calling me a tard. its hardly even an argument, u say we might as well not have it but its clear outcomes wld b different if we didnt. just a ridiculous statement on ur part (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588959) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:35 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
*Sets up system where I decide, on a case-by-case basis predicated on my gut judgment, what activities I feel like saying are 'constitutional'*
*Smugly points out that 'we must have a constitution', otherwise 'I couldn't make those calls, now could I?'*
*Has a probable IQ of ~105* |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:37 PM Author: hideous federal cuck literally no idea what you're trying to say in this post. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588982) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:38 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
Well this surprises me |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM Author: hideous federal cuck lol ok tbf. ur the mfe, scalia is the great genius of the world or w/e (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589003) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs If you knew anything you would know that someone with TBF's stance would, odds are, like Thomas alot better. But you are an ignorant retard who thinks "DERP ORIGINALIST DERP CONSERVATIVE DERP SCALIA". Did you just read Scalia's wiki entry and see that he is claimed to be the "originalist" of the court? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589013) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM Author: hideous federal cuck i know that tbf likes thomas a lot better, hes stated that many times. my post wasnt abt who he agreed with more. its amazing that even in a small post like this u find some small distinction 2 completely fail 2 appreciate. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589020) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:48 PM Author: hideous federal cuck lol i just reread this. u realize most of the posters here are practicing or unemployed lawyers from T14 skewls rite? & ur a college freshman who believes in austrian economics magic? u might consider not accusing ppl of not knowing their shit and instead listening & trying 2 learn a bit. itll help 4 when ur finally at ur regional law skewl & get ur first semester straight Bs back. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589044) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:51 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
Hey bro I don't want to break up this sandbox scuffle, but have you ever considered not spelling/writing like you're posting a comment about a Wu-Tang music video on Youtube? |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:54 PM Author: hideous federal cuck i have but 4 watever reason thats how i like 2 post. To be fair, I can use whatever diction I want; it's not like I don't know how to spell, punctuate, and use grammar. its just that i find typing like this 2 b a healthy alternative 2 taking this place srsly. i read my own statements & remember i & every1 else are flame. Thank you for the opportunity to explain, however. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589069) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:55 PM Author: Bat Shit Crazy Brunch Corn Cake To be fair,
Brother politics aside will you at least fondle my engorged dickhead a little |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:57 PM Author: hideous federal cuck will it cum? if no itll b a VERY frustrating experience 4 me (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589081) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:39 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs like I said, you may just be having a bad day, or you don't grasp the subject matter, or you are plain retarded, but you need to stop posting. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588995) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:42 PM Author: hideous federal cuck i'll take ur advice, i always 4get how posting abt politics/law here is like sticking my head up sean hannity's ass these days (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589016) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:53 PM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort lulz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589066) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:35 PM Author: Flushed hairy legs outcome would not. The law would be struck down, just under a different (more truthful) label. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588970) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:37 PM Author: hideous federal cuck only in a very specific kind of constitutionless state (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588985) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:38 PM Author: Provocative gay wizard i actually thought AEI was somewhat respectable. this is like fox news comments bullshit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20588988) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:40 PM Author: metal fear-inspiring nowag resort Thanks breh. Very cogent point (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589002) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:41 PM Author: hideous federal cuck cr (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589004) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 12:43 PM Author: chartreuse jewess What are the alternatives (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589025) |
|
Date: May 1st, 2012 2:14 PM Author: emerald exciting address It's a WaPo article, reposted at AEI. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1937597&forum_id=2#20589520) |