Cuccinelli is making a very witty play on "The dogma lives loudly within you," which is something Sen. Dianne Feinstein famously said to Amy Coney Barrett, who is another one of the 3 finalists.
Kavanaugh worked in the George W. Bush White House, and that counts as a negative, apparently, among Trump people. Cuccinelli also said, "He looks, walks and quacks like John G. Roberts Jr." I remember when John Roberts seemed like perfection in a Supreme Court nominee, but things have changed.
The 3rd potential nominee is Raymond Kethledge, and WaPo says "Kavanaugh and Kethledge have the 'inside track,' according to a person close to the president," because Coney Barrett has less than a year of judging to top off her 10 years of law professing. (I'll just note that Elena Kagan was mainly a law professor/dean and had not served as a judge at all before joining the Supreme Court.)
So... at the moment, it looks like Kethledge is the one. Here's a Politico article, "Kethledge gets 11th hour push as potential consensus pick for Supreme Court/Boosters for the Michigan-based judge are portraying him as eminently confirmable." I guess if "11th hour" things are possible, it could turn out to be someone we haven't been talking about yet, but I'll read this article anyway:
Former aides and supporters of Kethledge, a Michigan resident who moves outside Washington circles and is considered the least known of the leading contenders, are quietly circulating positive information about the judge’s personal life, political profile and reassuring record on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit...What religion (if any) is Kethledge? I'm having a hard time finding an answer, though I see that Hugh Hewitt, pushing Kethledge in "Here’s who Trump should pick for the Supreme Court" (WaPo), called him "a man of faith." What faith? Is it possible that he's not Catholic, like every other Republican appointee?
Confidants also are sharing tidbits from what they describe as his encouraging early interactions with Trump, who is prioritizing personal chemistry and political magnetism along with a potential nominee’s legal record. “They just really hit it off,” said one Republican close to the White House....
Kethledge lacks Kavanaugh’s vast D.C. network and does not excite grass-roots conservatives in the same way as Barrett — a Roman Catholic, Notre Dame law professor and mother of seven who is electrifying the anti-abortion ranks....
Back to the Politico article:
Kethledge met his wife, Jessica, when they were only 13 years old. The couple have two children... Kethledge... once gave a speech at his alma mater, the University of Michigan Law School, which includes a somewhat unflattering comparison of himself to Bill Murray’s character in “Caddyshack.”Golf. There's a point of affiliation. Hey, I found the "Caddyshack" quote, in this speech text, which begins:
For me, speaking in Room 100 of Hutchins Hall is always like coming home again. In law school I took more classes in this room than I can remember, but the one I remember best, of course, was Commercial Transactions with James J. White. I have never had a better professor anywhere than Jim White. I took that class twenty-six years ago, which is a bit hard to believe, and in those days we were here each morning, four days a week, at 8:00 a.m. sharp. In Professor White’s class everything was sharp, not least his sense of humor, which I have often since described as “predatory.” One day’s class comes to mind, especially today. We had been working on some issue arising under the Uniform Commercial Code. At the end of class, Professor White chose three panels of three students apiece and told each panel to prepare an opinion on the issue and to read it to the class the next day. I got picked for one of the panels and then somehow got the task of writing up our opinion and reading it to the class. What I wrote up by hand at 7:15 a.m. the next morning was more “talking points” than a judicial opinion, but I figured I could just wing it from there when I presented to the class. Well, when I got to class I knew I was in trouble when I saw that the other eight students on the panels were wearing suits, whereas I was wearing jeans and a t-shirt. And then I saw that the other two panels had printed out copies of their opinions, indeed enough for the whole class, whereas I had my sheet from a legal pad. So I sat up on this very dais with two students from the other panels, feeling a bit like Bill Murray in Caddyshack, as each of them read their panel’s opinion. Then I stumbled through mine, saying something like, “The creditor can’t recover here because, you know, he didn’t perfect his interest, so, you know, he loses.” At the end of that performance Professor White nodded rather gravely and said, “Mr. Jones and Ms. Smith, I see that you have copies of the opinions you’ve prepared, so please distribute those to the class.” Then he turned to me and said, “Mr. Kethledge, what have you got there—scraps of paper?” I think I said, “It’s actually just one piece of paper,” but that didn’t do me much good. Well, I’m wearing a suit today, and I’ve written some opinions in the meantime, so I hope I can make amends now.
Today, after almost ten years on the bench, I’d like to offer some reflections about cases involving statutory interpretation and administrative law. The law governing statutory interpretation, especially, has changed significantly since the time I was here as a student. That was the tail end of the era when lawyers would resort to the statutory text only if the legislative history was ambiguous. What brought that era to an end, of course, was the jurisprudence of Justice Antonin Scalia. Now, as Justice Kagan recently declared, “we are all textualists.”
Yet as a practical matter textualism has a certain fragility. Not in a doctrinal or logical sense: there is a straight line from the bicameralism and presentment requirements of Article I; to a statutory text that has met those requirements; to the meaning that the citizens bound by that text would ascribe to it, which is to say its public meaning; and to what is then the law, which as judges we are bound to apply. In these respects, the inquiry is essentially the same as the one in constitutional cases: namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved. By fragility, instead, I mean a certain fragility in application. For the first reflection I offer is this: There is nothing so liberating for a judge as the discovery of an ambiguity.
Posts
180 comments:
Where's the Caddyshack reference again?
Funny law school story. He learned from it.
And thanks to Ann for doing this. Now watch the rest of the media crib from Althouse.
Chuck thread!
And I’m writing that in a positive way. I expect he has met and knows a-z on Kethridge.
In these respects, the inquiry is essentially the same as the one in constitutional cases: namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.
I wonder if U.S. citizens in 1868 would have ascribed the rights of birthright citizenship, homosexual behavior, and abortion to the 14th Amendment?
Some of Barrett's children must be quite young. Would she be willing to expose them to the current climate of vilification?
I will be pissed if Trump picks a Bushie (see today's column from Pat Buchanan "Never Trumpers are Never Coming Back). I would love a Barrett nomination but am just fine with a fellow UM Law grad getting the nod. Either way Flyover Country makes the Supreme Court.
At least he understands what a fraud legislative history is — not that the judges who use it to enact their personal policy preferences don’t.
Ray said...
Chuck thread!
And I’m writing that in a positive way. I expect he has met and knows a-z on Kethridge.
Well I know that it is "Kethledge." I also know J.J. White, and Ray Kethledge's description is rather good.
His situation resembles something from My Cousin Vinny or early in Legally Blonde but not Caddyshack
On the other hand when you mention Caddyshack most men of a certain age will completely tune out from what you're saying and repeat all of their favorite lines in their heads, so perhaps he's adept at playing good defense. That's a peach, hon!
The Democrats? They'll get nothing and like it!
Once you start on Caddyshack, it can go on for days.
Good for you finding the reference to "faith" in the Hewitt piece. I tried "religion," "church," probably "Catholic," and got nothing. I don't know if it's the case any more that politicians are known to have this or that religion--it's certainly not in Canada. But for the U.S. Supreme Court, this is still listed routinely. Scalia used to point out that it was all Catholics and Jews--hardly representative of the U.S. population. Gorsuch apparently attends an Episcopal church. There's some internecine conservative wrangling (if Kaus counts as a conservative based on wanting restrictions on immigration): is Kethledge soft on immigration? Is he inclined to move away from a narrow ground for a decision, and hold forth on a grand moral theory, reminiscent of Anthony Kennedy?
Kethledge was born in Summit, New Jersey, the son of Diane and Ray Kethledge.[2][3] His paternal grandfather is Raymond W. Ketchledge, an engineer who invented an acoustically guided torpedo that was used to sink dozens of German U-boats during World War II.[4]
How cool is that?
So he dated a thirteen year old. And we're supposed to believe that just because he later married her that that makes it okay.
I wonder if U.S. citizens in 1868 would have ascribed the rights of birthright citizenship, homosexual behavior, and abortion to the 14th Amendment?
I don't know about your other examples but you really have to torture the text of the fourteenth amendment not to find birthright citizenship.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
Claiming that someone who is in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is silly. At the time Native Americans were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. The only exception now would be someone here under some kind of diplomatic status.
I will say this about Raymond Kethledge; I think that of all of the candidates that are most potentially like Kennedy II, it would be Kethledge. I think that he is that much of an unknown, in the realm of deciding hot-button cases. It is a bit remarkable that in his time on the Sixth Circuit, he has not had to rule on anything that would be a red flag for his opponents. If there is some sort of claim that Kethledge is a Scalia-model originalist, I'd say, "That's nice to know; how do you know that?"
Kethledge does have, without a doubt, the best real-world experience. He really, truly, did work in the private sector practice of litigation. Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett don't have that experience. (Barrett was an associate in a big Washington law firm for a couple of years before going in the law professor business; but she was never a law firm manager as Kethledge was. Kavanaugh has been in Washington for virtually his entire legal career, working hard public issues from a hard conservative angle.)
If I were President, my choices among the three would be, in order;
1. Kavanaugh
2. Barrett
3. Kethledge
Also from wikipedia:
When Kethledge is in northern Michigan, he works in an office he created in a family barn near Lake Huron. The office has no internet, a wood stove for heat, and a pine desk for a work space.[30] He has spoken publicly about hunting with his son in the Michigan wilderness.[31]
Gahrie said...
In these respects, the inquiry is essentially the same as the one in constitutional cases: namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.
I wonder if U.S. citizens in 1868 would have ascribed the rights of birthright citizenship, homosexual behavior, and abortion to the 14th Amendment?
---
As an exercise (and not out of antagonism), I want you to imagine that the United States changes its motto, and then I want you to tell me what Tennessee's National Motto in the Classroom Act would require.
"There is nothing so liberating for a judge as the discovery of an ambiguity."
I bet it is. Don't we know it.
Anyway, does he think it is good for a judge to be so "liberated"? How will he handle his "liberty"?
There are a couple of very positive Above The Law posts on Kethredge. One is about his book on solitude and leadership, co-authored with West Pointer Michael Erwin:
I like the details of this whole response, from the beers to the 100 degree heat:
Mike and I were having beers in an Irish pub in Ann Arbor. He mentioned a speech that Bill Deresiewicz had given at West Point about solitude and leadership. I talked about my barn office in northern Michigan, in a forested area overlooking Lake Huron. I have no internet connection, the HVAC is a wood stove, and my workspace is a simple pine desk. I told Mike that I get an extra 20 IQ points from being in that office.
Mike talked about his first deployment to Iraq. Every day he walked to the chow hall both ways – a mile each way, in 100-degree heat – because he wanted to think things through or settle himself emotionally. He did that even though he’s a real extrovert.
After that conversation, we decided to try to write a book about the importance of solitude.
I'm always struck how stupid Conservatives are on the SCOUTS nominees. These "philosopher Kings" will rule over us for the next 20-40 years. All that matters is how they will rule.
But instead of caring about that, conservatives focus in on: what sex are, what color are they, what school they went to, and what religion are they. And who likes them. And of course, we get the wimps who don't want to fight, and always want to please the Left by nominating a squish or try to be "super-clever" and a nominate a blank slate.
Its this kind of dumb thinking that gave us liberals Stevens and Souter. Squishes like O'Connor and Kennedy. And *almost* gave us Harriet Miers instead of Alioto.
Nominating O'Connor -so he could get 2 seconds of applause for nominating a female - over Bork was the biggest unenforced error Reagan made.
namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.
And where in the Constitution do you find this restriction? Yet when in comes to the Second Amendment, arms did not include breech loading (unless you were royalty in Europe) or semi-automatic firearms, but apparently now they are covered by that amendment.
I still want Trump to nominate Hillary, just for the spectacle and to watch her lose. Again.
I wonder if U.S. citizens in 1868 would have ascribed the rights of birthright citizenship, homosexual behavior, and abortion to the 14th Amendment?
In 1868, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you crossed the border, you were in.
Re: Freder Frederson:
Claiming that someone who is in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is silly.
It would also be self-defeating . . . if they're not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, how could United States laws compel their expulsion for violations of immigration law?
Apropos of Lloyd Robertson's comment above, Kaus's reaction to Kethledge has me concerned that he is a consensus Trojan horse to eliminate rational immigration enforcement. I have not done any of the research myself, though.
I wouldn't nominate ANYONE who was a friend of the Bushes. Next to Romney and McCain, the Bush Family are the biggest frauds in recent history.
They constantly change their political spots, will say anything to get elected, and have only one true loyalty - to themselves.
"I remember when John Roberts seemed like perfection in a Supreme Court nominee, but things have changed."
I'm still trying to understand how you can declare something a "tax" after having previously determined in the same case that it wasn't. Why wasn't the Anti-Injunction Act retroactively triggered when they concluded it WAS a tax?
I hope it's Coney Barrett. Firstly, Catholic (I'm "ethnically" Catholic but am not religious). Love to see people bitch about how many Catholics are on SCOTUS.
Secondly, wouldn't fewer years as a judge result in less available questioning regarding previous rulings? Doesn't that transform ammo of opponents from specific objections to the more vague "She's too much of an unknown?"
Lastly, she's hot. If she were a President, she'd be Baberaham Lincoln. If she were a Justice she'd be Ruth Baber Ginsburg.
"The Bush lives loudly in Kavanaugh."
Simple on it’s face, that’s a brilliantly manipulative comment. You would just have to make sure Trump heard it, for him to slowly start finding reasons to discount Kavanaugh in the selection process. I’ve seen it happen in dozens of decision-making meetings.
The other reference from Above the Law is this great story.
https://abovethelaw.com/2013/09/dont-make-fun-of-a-legal-argument-if-youre-completely-wrong/
There’s no better way to introduce this story than by reprinting the opening paragraph of the Sixth Circuit opinion by Judge Raymond Kethledge (citation omitted):
There are good reasons not to call an opponent’s argument “ridiculous,” which is what State Farm calls Barbara Bennett’s principal argument here. The reasons include civility; the near-certainty that overstatement will only push the reader away (especially when, as here, the hyperbole begins on page one of the brief); and that, even where the record supports an extreme modifier, “the better practice is usually to lay out the facts and let the court reach its own conclusions.” But here the biggest reason is more simple: the argument that State Farm derides as ridiculous is instead correct.
@rcorean - was Sotomayor put on the court for any other reason than her being Latino and female? Her opinion writing doesn’t indicate it was for her legal intellect, that is for sure.
Its seems none of the three are what they should be.
Forthright, on the record, constitutionalist, who will vote like Scalia.
Look for another Kennedy squish. Oy vey!
@austinroth - isn't it funny how the Left NEVER has to worry about their nominees voting for their side?
No matter who they nominate, they turn out to be 90-100% liberal on every issue. And they vote like a bloc.
Meanwhile, we have scream and shout just to get a squish like Roberts nominated.
I remember when John Roberts seemed like perfection in a Supreme Court nominee, but things have changed.
Yes they did change. For me it was his backtracking on ObamaCare. It was clear the Court voted 5-4 to find it unconstitutional. Sometime after the opinion was written Roberts changed his vote and sided with the liberals.
It appears he folded under political or personal pressure. That weakness is not a good quality in a Supreme Court judge.
It's kind of a funny thing about the claim of "academic diversity" with Ray Kethledge. If you asked the average Michigan Law School grad if Michigan was very different from Harvard Yale and Stanford, they'd mostly say, "No; not much difference at all..."
Re: Freder Frederson:
In 1868, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you crossed the border, you were in.
Yes, back in those days, we were the ones sending hordes of illegal immigrants into our neighbours in violation of their sovereignty. That's how we detached Texas from Mexico, after all -- mass immigration with the tacit support of political authorities within the United States. They made the mistake of opening the border in the 1820's, then tried to stop further immigration from the US in 1830, but it was already too late.
Would that we could know what is truly in a persons heart before granting them so much (practically) unfettered power. The system is and has been idiotic since before Marbury v. Madison, and it is unlikely to ever be fixed.
I wonder if U.S. citizens in 1868 would have ascribed the rights of birthright citizenship, homosexual behavior, and abortion to the 14th Amendment?
In 1868, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you crossed the border, you were in.
So you agree with me that the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship, and was not perceived to have done so.
Yes, back in those days, we were the ones sending hordes of illegal immigrants into our neighbours in violation of their sovereignty. That's how we detached Texas from Mexico, after all -- mass immigration with the tacit support of political authorities within the United States. They made the mistake of opening the border in the 1820's, then tried to stop further immigration from the US in 1830, but it was already too late.
So perhaps we should take a lesson from history?
Gahrie said...
I wonder if U.S. citizens in 1868 would have ascribed the rights of birthright citizenship, homosexual behavior, and abortion to the 14th Amendment?
In 1868, there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. If you crossed the border, you were in.
So you agree with me that the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship, and was not perceived to have done so.
7/6/18, 9:14 AM
---
Likewise, in 1791, there was neither Internet nor television nor radio. So you agree with me that the 1st Amendment is no bar to Congress barring political communication in those media, and was not perceived to have been as much.
Likewise, in 1791, there was no AR-15. So you agree with me that the 2d Amendment is no bar to Congress forbidding the sale or possession of the AR-15, and was not perceived to have been as much.
This is easy.
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
"I remember when John Roberts seemed like perfection in a Supreme Court nominee, but things have changed."
Yes they did change. For me it was his backtracking on ObamaCare. It was clear the Court voted 5-4 to find it unconstitutional. Sometime after the opinion was written Roberts changed his vote and sided with the liberals.
It appears he folded under political or personal pressure. That weakness is not a good quality in a Supreme Court judge.
The Obamcare obsession in TrumpWorld is so interesting to me. I presume that it is all personal, wrapped up in a personal loathing of Obama and entirely divorced from reality.
TrumpWorld has never come close, to thinking of a replacement for Obamacare. Trump himself has gone from favoring a single-payer system like Canada or the UK, to talking about "repealing" Obamacare, to campaigning on a promise to never reduce any Medicare benefits (or even reform it!)
Chief Justice Roberts has a superior record as a conservative justice on the Supreme Court. It is his Obamacare decision (where what he really wanted was to have Congress rightly sort out something that should be in Congress no matter what) that seems to be the one and only Trumpkin knock on him.
Based on reading my fellow commenters, I guess no one is acceptable. We should just give Justice Thomas two votes.
I don't think the heavy stuff is going to come down for quite a while."
So you agree with me that the 14th Amendment was not intended to grant birthright citizenship, and was not perceived to have done so.
No, I do not agree with you. Of course it does and was intended to grant birthright citizenship.
Freder:
"'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.'
Claiming that someone who is in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is silly. At the time Native Americans were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. The only exception now would be someone here under some kind of diplomatic status."
Seems to me that there is an argument that the amendment meant at the time of adoption that all persons born (as in the past tense - already here) are citizens, as a way to grant citizenship to all of the former slaves. The amendment was a one-time shot to fix a problem, not to make law for all people not yet born here.
Now, I am not making that argument now, I am merely pointing out that there is more than one way to interpret the amendment. To get a firm understanding of what the amendment was supposed to do you have to well, " namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved."
Likewise, in 1791, there was neither Internet nor television nor radio. So you agree with me that the 1st Amendment is no bar to Congress barring political communication in those media, and was not perceived to have been as much.
Likewise, in 1791, there was no AR-15. So you agree with me that the 2d Amendment is no bar to Congress forbidding the sale or possession of the AR-15, and was not perceived to have been as much.
You are apparently think that I am an Originalist or Constitutionalist (to bad Simon is no longer around to explain the difference, I never understood the distinction). I am absolutely not.
namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved.
And where in the Constitution do you find this restriction?
If we aren't supposed to go by the meaning and intent of those who wrote the document...why bother writing it down? These men spent hours arguing about the location of a comma when they wrote this document.
Yet when in comes to the Second Amendment, arms did not include breech loading (unless you were royalty in Europe) or semi-automatic firearms, but apparently now they are covered by that amendment.
Arms is short for armaments which are military weapons and equipment. The amendment provides the right to own any weapon, not just guns and including any future type of weapon that is invented. (say a phaser) In fact not only is the meaning of arms restrictive as you imply it is, it is actually expansive, bolstering the right to own military grade weapons like fully automatic machine guns (as used to be legal).
Like William says!
Let's see if i've got this right?
This 'judge', while cruising the junior high, lookin' for chix; found one.
*BUT* , it's 'supposed to be okay', ' cause later on he married her???
Oh! and, he was younger back then!
Didn't we already do this?
Blogger Gahrie said...
If we aren't supposed to go by the meaning and intent of those who wrote the document...why bother writing it down? These men spent hours arguing about the location of a comma when they wrote this document.
---
For what it is worth, Scalia thought this sort of line obviously incorrect, and he spent a great deal of effort making clear its errors. (The standard read here: A Matter of Interpretation.)
Freder,
I wasn't meaning to respond to you -- I was responding to Gahrie, suggesting that the line of thought pursued would lead to (presumably) unpalatable outcomes.
Well they came through one embarkation point, Ellis island, thats why the Congolese national who staged the protest is somewhat amusing.
Yet when in comes to the Second Amendment, arms did not include breech loading (unless you were royalty in Europe) or semi-automatic firearms, but apparently now they are covered by that amendment.
Arms is short for armaments which are military weapons and equipment. The amendment provides the right to own any weapon, not just guns and including any future type of weapon that is invented. (say a phaser) In fact not only is the meaning of arms restrictive as you imply it is, it is actually expansive, bolstering the right to own military grade weapons like fully automatic machine guns (as used to be legal).
7/6/18, 9:25 AM
---
Jesus Christ. You can be a literalist here, but when the constitution says "All persons born ... in the United States ... are citizens of the United States", you think that language is apparently open to interpretation or revision _by statute_!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause
However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth,[15][16][17] and no senator offered a contrary opinion.
The floor debate does indicate that the wording of the amendment was intended to exclude Indians living on reservations.
If we aren't supposed to go by the meaning and intent of those who wrote the document...why bother writing it down?
But on the other hand, the founders were steeped in the traditions of Common Law, where the law evolves based on precedent and changing circumstances.
No one (except Justice Thomas) would be deviant enough to argue that "cruel and unusual punishment" should be based on its meaning in 1791. Then any punishment short of drawing and quartering (hell maybe even that, since the British didn't ban it until the early 19th Century) would be acceptable.
Likewise, in 1791, there was neither Internet nor television nor radio. So you agree with me that the 1st Amendment is no bar to Congress barring political communication in those media, and was not perceived to have been as much.
Only if you misunderstand the First Amendment. When the First Amendment was written "press" did not refer to reporters, it referred to the machinery required to print. So freedom of the press actually means the right to access to the machinery necessary to publish your speech. Today that would include the internet, television and radio.
Likewise, in 1791, there was no AR-15. So you agree with me that the 2d Amendment is no bar to Congress forbidding the sale or possession of the AR-15, and was not perceived to have been as much.
No. The Second Amendment does not talk of muskets or guns. It talks of arms, which is short for armaments. Armaments are military weapons and thus include swords, pikes, muskets bows, phasers and yes, Ar-15s.
This is easy.
I came through the freedom tower in miami as did most emigres from my country of birth, or at least were processed that way
The floor debate does indicate that the wording of the amendment was intended to exclude Indians living on reservations.
Which is why it took a separate law (I believe some time in the 1910's) to grant Indians citizenship rights.
No one (except Justice Thomas) would be deviant enough to argue that "cruel and unusual punishment" should be based on its meaning in 1791. Then any punishment short of drawing and quartering (hell maybe even that, since the British didn't ban it until the early 19th Century) would be acceptable.
What Justice Thomas and right thinking people would argue is that it is the role of the people acting through the legislature to define or change the meaning of cruel and unusual.
Gahrie said...
Likewise, in 1791, there was neither Internet nor television nor radio. So you agree with me that the 1st Amendment is no bar to Congress barring political communication in those media, and was not perceived to have been as much.
Only if you misunderstand the First Amendment. When the First Amendment was written "press" did not refer to reporters, it referred to the machinery required to print. So freedom of the press actually means the right to access to the machinery necessary to publish your speech. Today that would include the internet, television and radio.
Likewise, in 1791, there was no AR-15. So you agree with me that the 2d Amendment is no bar to Congress forbidding the sale or possession of the AR-15, and was not perceived to have been as much.
No. The Second Amendment does not talk of muskets or guns. It talks of arms, which is short for armaments. Armaments are military weapons and thus include swords, pikes, muskets bows, phasers and yes, Ar-15s.
This is easy.
7/6/18, 9:31 AM
---
Gahrie,
You are flip-flopping. You are unprincipled. Do you think that the meaning of the statute is the imagined extension of the terms by the audience at the time? You sure seemed to think so when you were applying the 14th amendment? Or do you think it is the imagined intension of the terms by the audience at the time, as applied to contemporary facts? You sure seemed to think so when you were applying the 1st and 2d? Maybe you don't recognize the difference? I strongly suggest you actually read Scalia, any of the serious textualists, or any of the serious originalists.
This is hard. (This = trying to help someone who hasn't thought seriously about judicial interpretation see more clearly when they are unwilling to put in the work.)
Arms is short for armaments which are military weapons and equipment. The amendment provides the right to own any weapon, not just guns and including any future type of weapon that is invented
Exactly!
After the '45*, the new german 'king'** enacted the Act of Proscription in 1746, which forbid all Highlanders "to have in his or their custody, use, or bear, broad sword or target, poignard, whinger, or durk, side pistol, gun, or other warlike weapon".
THIS is what our 2nd amendment is to prevent. You can learn a LOT about Why the Americas threw out their german 'King' by looking at how many Americans were followers of the True King James
the '45* 1745, when Bonnie Prince Charlie gave the Brits their LAST CHANCE for freedom
german 'king'** Not MY King!
He seems to go on at length without much respect for getting to the point.
Too wrapped up in himself perhaps.
@ Michigan grads: did Professor White teach a course called Law and Literature?
Speaking of Caddyshack, Trump really needs to appoint Judge Smails to the Supreme Court.
That would complete the restoration of Western culture and society.
Hey Chuckles,
Try to comprehend what you read before you write your equivalent of a menstrual cramp.
All I pointed out was that it was obvious the Chief Justice changed his vote at the last minute. Read the dissent if you have any doubts. That type of weak-kneed response is not a good look for a judge.
As for ObamaCare, The legislation was a mess. The enactment was a disaster. And the results are negative on the whole.
It appears your love for Obama has, once again, led you astray.
Trump has not made the same mistake as Obama. Obama rammed through a huge and disruptive piece of legislation on a forced party-line vote. That is not an effective approach to governance. So the idiot Trump is smarter than Obama and Trump world is more rational than LLR.
Gahrie: What Justice Thomas and right thinking people would argue is that it is the role of the people acting through the legislature to define or change the meaning of cruel and unusual.
Wait, so the Constitution doesn't actually restrict Congress at all, because they can just legislatively declare that any given punishment is neither "cruel" nor "unusual"?
I prefer someone who does not and has not lived in the DC area.
Gahrie: What Justice Thomas and right thinking people would argue is that it is the role of the people acting through the legislature to define or change the meaning of cruel and unusual.
Wait, so the Constitution doesn't actually restrict Congress at all, because they can just legislatively declare that any given punishment is neither "cruel" nor "unusual"?
There's this thing called an amendment. Look it up.
Whichever brute, brutish Trump chooses for the Supreme Court must be borked until his cork pops, and the Brut bubbles out of his bloodied, broken-bottled brain into the bathroom bowl known as Trump's gold toilet. Trump's nominee must be flushed down the toilet until nary a trace of his evil remains remain. In racist Trump's case a confirmation hearing must resemble a lynching party. Trump's mob rule must end, and end now. He must not be permitted to pick anything without a street brawl, not even his nose. The deplorable in the White House must be sent packing until his last Gucci suitcase is gone. He won't be missed.
Freder: "Claiming that someone who is in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is silly."
If they were not subject to US jurisdiction, then ICE couldn't capture and arrest them either. They would have immunity just like foreign diplomats.
Sheesh! People either have,or pretend to have, a pretty poor grasp of original public meaning. What did the words mean at the time to the set of people who voted on or ratified a statute or constitution?
It’s not about construction or application.
If you had asked someone voting on ratifying the Constitution whether “press” in the First Amendment was limited to printing presses then in use, excluding any technical improvements, what would they have understood it to mean? Ditto “arms”.
(BTW, by authorizing the issuance of letters of marque or reprisal, the Constitution contemplated private ownership and use.of warships.)
Joan Larsen.
"To get a firm understanding of what the amendment was supposed to do you have to well, " namely, what is the meaning that the citizens bound by the law would have ascribed to it at the time it was approved."
That is irrelevant,
since that is now how a constitutional amendment is enacted.
It's NOT enacted by plebiscite.
It's enacted by 2/3 of Congress + 3/4 of the state legislatures.
You would have to go back and find out what those officials were thinking at the time, which wasn't always what their constitutents were thinking.
Lucien,
I'm glad to see you're abandoning the side of the extension-ists. Welcome to the reasonable position!
Bill, Republic of Texas said...
Hey Chuckles,
Try to comprehend what you read before you write your equivalent of a menstrual cramp.
All I pointed out was that it was obvious the Chief Justice changed his vote at the last minute. Read the dissent if you have any doubts. That type of weak-kneed response is not a good look for a judge.
As for ObamaCare, The legislation was a mess. The enactment was a disaster. And the results are negative on the whole.
It appears your love for Obama has, once again, led you astray.
Trump has not made the same mistake as Obama. Obama rammed through a huge and disruptive piece of legislation on a forced party-line vote. That is not an effective approach to governance. So the idiot Trump is smarter than Obama and Trump world is more rational than LLR.
I'm not an Obama supporter. Never have been. Never once voted for him.
And I was not an Obamacare supporter. Athough I found it interesting. I agree with you that it was all very deeply flawed, starting with, as you very rightly describe, the "forced party-line vote." From the moment it passed in that way, I thought it would be a failure.
But that is precisely what Trump presided over when he became president. He had no interest in healthcare, or real solutions. He only wanted a result. Something -- anything -- that would allow him to go out to rallies and claim that HE repealed Obamacare just like he promised he would.
Trump is a true dunce when it comes to healthcare, it seems to me. Not once have I heard a single sentence from him that had any sophistication, any evidence of understanding how hard the issues are. In fact, the one time he came closest was the one time Trump betrayed his ignorance, saying, "Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated." In fact, absolutely everybody who ran against Trump in a primary or general election knew very well how complicated health care reform was and is. Trump doesn't have any knowledge, or any experience in the issue. Worst of all (since no U.S. president can ever be an expert in everything), Trump seems to have no interest in health care reform. (And in that, Trump seems to be a kindred spirit with Althouse, who has publicly disdained blogging about health care reform basically because she finds it boring.)
Whoever is suspected of being a potential swing vote in "overturning" Roe vs. Wade will need to wear a false beard when venturing out into public spaces.
Trump seems to have no interest in health care reform
If only Obama had had that same virtue.
I'm not paying attention to all the fine details, but I'm sort of rooting for Barrett. I just look forward to the Dems painting this mother of seven as a dark, sinister force and a threat to all that we hold sacred in America. Who should lead the charge against her: Warren or Maxine Waters? I hope Lena Dunham and Anna Wintour also step up to sound the alarm.
Trump is a true dunce when it comes to healthcare, it seems to me.
Shocking!
Not once have I heard a single sentence from him that had any sophistication, any evidence of understanding how hard the issues are.
Wow..that's scary. Maybe he should create a cabinet department and hire thousands of experts to research the issues and give him their best recommendations.
It will be Kethlidge for sure. He has Trump's attention and he has mine because he shows that he has high emotional intelligence necessary in human interractions; whether they be between Jurors and trial lawyers, Presidents and candidates, or Appellate Judges and the hard cases.
The Eastern shore of Lake Huron is the Canadian border, and that qualifies as the Frontier that formed America's values
The problem with health care reform is that it requires a market mechanism, like the French system, which would be good model for us. The trouble is that markets are anathema to the left.
Henry said...
"Trump seems to have no interest in health care reform"
If only Obama had had that same virtue.
In that case, Trump should just say that he'll deregulate everything, and break it all down and let people and insurers and employers and health care providers do whatever they want.
But that isn't how Trump campaigned. Trump campaigned on promises of fixing the system, and providing better care with lower costs and lower premiums and lower deductibles and most of all how Trump would cover "everybody... “I am going to take care of everybody. I don’t care if it costs me votes or not. Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.” Trump's replacement of Obamacare would be "something terrific." And Trump hasn't said what it would be, and he hasn't lifted a finger to work at achieving it.
No other GOP presidential candidate was so stupid to have made such promises. No one in Congress is so stupid to have made such promises. Trump is alone, in being such a shameless salesman to have made those claims.
Gahrie: There's this thing called an amendment. Look it up.
Absent an additional amendment, does the Eighth's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" prohibit all punishments, prohibit no punishments, or prohibit some punishments? If the third choice, how do you determine which are prohibited and which aren't?
"I wonder if U.S. citizens in 1868 would have ascribed the rights of birthright citizenship, homosexual behavior, and abortion to the 14th Amendment?"
In 1868 there was no such thing as "homosexual behavior."
There was only perversion.
A fact that has not changed.
The problem with health care reform is that it requires a market mechanism, like the French system, which would be good model for us. The trouble is that markets are anathema to the left.
The French system is also heavily regulated by the government, which of course is an anathema to the right.
And please provide an example where any politician or analyst on the left has said they don't want a system like France. We love the French (or the similar German) system.
Talk about a straw man.
Kethledge cannot, must not be selected. Unless I'm wrong, he was referring to Bill Murray in Groundhog Day, not Caddyshack.
This is unacceptable.
In that case, Trump should just say that he'll deregulate everything...
That's healthcare reform. If Trump said that, he'd be talking a bigger fiction than anything yet.
The point is not that Trump should or should not do anything. The point is that nothing Trump or Congress can do will "fix" healthcare anymore than Obama and his congress "fixed" it.
Reforming healthcare is like reforming volcanoes. You better have a long plan.
Re: Healthcare Insurance Reform
I wouldn't be surprised to see another attempt at a proper Obamacare repeal in the next Congress.
We haven't heard much about it since the (mostly) failed attempt last year, because there aren't the votes in the Senate to do anything. If, as seems likely, the GOP pick up a few Senate seats in November, I'd expect we'll see a new Obamacare bill by next summer.
I don't think so Rabel. Kethledge said he felt like Bill Murray at the time, which possibly could encompass Groundhog Day (1993, the year he graduated law school), but most likely I think Kethledge is referring to Murray's unkempt persona in Caddyshack as opposed to the impressive Chevy Chase personas of the other two students.
clint said, "I'd expect we'll see a new Obamacare bill by next summer."
Even so, it won't restore the past.
Chuck said...
The Obamcare obsession in TrumpWorld is so interesting to me. I presume that it is all personal, wrapped up in a personal loathing of Obama and entirely divorced from reality.
Of course you would presume something so stupid. You aren't really all that smart.
Obamacare was unconstitutional on it's face. There is no justification for forcing individuals to buy a product from anyone, much less a private entity, anywhere in the constitution.
A real lawyer would know that you need to understand the arguments of your opponents and be able to argue them as well as your opponent.
You are just a douchebag and have been a liar from the start or you are possibly the worst lawyer in the world.
Chuck said...
But that is precisely what Trump presided over when he became president. He had no interest in healthcare, or real solutions. He only wanted a result. Something -- anything -- that would allow him to go out to rallies and claim that HE repealed Obamacare just like he promised he would.
Chuck the mind reader says something else stupid.
Unexpectedly.
"I don't think so Rabel."
"speaking in Room 100 of Hutchins Hall is always like coming home again."
"I took more classes in this room than I can remember"
"in those days we were here each morning, four days a week, at 8:00 a.m. sharp"
He was returning to the same room, day after day. That's Groundhog Day.
conservatives focus in on: what sex are, what color are they, what school they went to, and what religion are they. And who likes them.
Right. Conservatives are downright obsessed by sex and race of nominees. LOL.
The only specifically "diverse" issue I've heard thoughtfully discussed was the push to get a non-Harvard justice on the court. I think when we talk "credentials" that "schools attended" are always part of it. The only reason religion has come up at all in the discussion is because bigots like Diane "Dogma" Feinstein keep slandering nominees on the basis of religion.
SeanF said...
Gahrie: What Justice Thomas and right thinking people would argue is that it is the role of the people acting through the legislature to define or change the meaning of cruel and unusual.
Wait, so the Constitution doesn't actually restrict Congress at all, because they can just legislatively declare that any given punishment is neither "cruel" nor "unusual"?
At least that's more democratic than having the Hawaiian judged decide for everybody. At least we voted for the legislature.
Absent an additional amendment, does the Eighth's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" prohibit all punishments,
Of course not, that would be absurd. And there would be no need for the modifiers, just a simple "punishments".
prohibit no punishments,
It clearly prohibits some punishments which is why the modifiers are used.
or prohibit some punishments?
This.
If the third choice, how do you determine which are prohibited and which aren't?
You look at what types of punishment were legal at the time. For instance capital punishment was fairly common and well accepted. (Hell it was a public spectacle.) Thus the idea that the death penalty is of itself prohibited is absurd, and any form of execution in use at the time (hanging, firing squad) is obviously constitutional.
Gahrie said...
Trump is a true dunce when it comes to healthcare, it seems to me.
Shocking!
Not once have I heard a single sentence from him that had any sophistication, any evidence of understanding how hard the issues are.
Wow..that's scary. Maybe he should create a cabinet department and hire thousands of experts to research the issues and give him their best recommendations.
No no no.
Obama's approach was the best.
Take a Mitt Romney law at the state level and push it to the federal level.
Uniparty bipartisanship.
Most of the assaults on Trump administration functionaries "eating their waffles" have been carried out by women.
"The Lottery" was written by a woman with knowledge of her sex.
Were not most of the threats uttered against AA and Meade at the Great Madison Kerfluffle also made by women? And calling them by their first names and so on?
Trump has to assume the next appointment will be even more contentious, so saving the most consentible is advisable.
Gahrie: You look at what types of punishment were legal at the time. For instance capital punishment was fairly common and well accepted. (Hell it was a public spectacle.) Thus the idea that the death penalty is of itself prohibited is absurd, and any form of execution in use at the time (hanging, firing squad) is obviously constitutional.
And what about forms of execution that did not exist at the time? Prohibited or allowed?
Achilles said...
Chuck said...
"The Obamcare obsession in TrumpWorld is so interesting to me. I presume that it is all personal, wrapped up in a personal loathing of Obama and entirely divorced from reality."
Of course you would presume something so stupid. You aren't really all that smart.
Obamacare was unconstitutional on it's face. There is no justification for forcing individuals to buy a product from anyone, much less a private entity, anywhere in the constitution.
A real lawyer would know that you need to understand the arguments of your opponents and be able to argue them as well as your opponent.
You are just a douchebag and have been a liar from the start or you are possibly the worst lawyer in the world.
Nobody was forced to buy health insurance. If you had money and didn't want to buy it, you didn't have to buy it. If you were poor, chances are good that your state expanded Medicaid to cover you. If not, or if you were working-poor, an health care exchange plan was available; often costing $50 to $150 per month, for some really good coverage. Better than many employer-based plans. And if you had a good income, yet didn't have health insurance, and if you didn't want health insurance, you didn't have to buy it. But if you went bare, there was an IRS penalty. And the common-sense reason for that -- a reason that the private healthcare industry (insurers and providers alike) knew very well that if you had a system in which pre-existing conditions would be covered immediately upon application for insurance, the only way to make it workable was to either get people into the risk pool en masse, or get rid of all pre-existing coverage entirely.
You, Achilles, are free to disagree with the merits of such a system. I don't care. I don't care to argue healthcare policy with you because you are too stupid; too insulting and too much of a waste of my time. I am taking this time with you personally because I just want to point out that whatever you think about the merits of healthcare reform, that you personally are a jackass and so are all of the Trumpkin/Tea Party types like you.
"In 1868 there was no such thing as "homosexual behavior."
There was only perversion."
Perversions you are well versed in in 2018.
Gahrie: You look at what types of punishment were legal at the time. For instance capital punishment was fairly common and well accepted. (Hell it was a public spectacle.) Thus the idea that the death penalty is of itself prohibited is absurd, and any form of execution in use at the time (hanging, firing squad) is obviously constitutional.
And what about forms of execution that did not exist at the time? Prohibited or allowed?
Most modern forms of execution have been developed to be less "cruel" than hanging and the firing squad. I don't see how you could make the argument that punishments today are more cruel and unusual than punishments then. I would say that makes them legal...but I really wouldn't have a problem with the determination that only forms of punishment in use at the time the Constitution were written are legal.
The Obamcare obsession in TrumpWorld is so interesting to me. I presume that it is all personal, wrapped up in a personal loathing of Obama and entirely divorced from reality.
Well, if there’s anyone that knows how much “personal loathing” can divorce someone from reality, it’s our own admitted liar Chuck. And we give him props for acknowledging that his interpretations are based on his own ignorant and malicious presumptions.
He was returning to the same room, day after day. That's Groundhog Day.
And then he segued to a specific one-time anecdote in which he talked about being called up to do a presentation in jeans and t-shirt while sitting next to two guys in suits and printed briefs. That, he says, is when he felt like Bill Murray in Caddyshack.
I think we can agree that he didn't feel like Bill Murray in Space Jam.
"But if you went bare, there was an IRS penalty."
-- That's like saying "the government isn't forcing you to not kill people, but if you do, there'll be a penalty." Part of the conservative objection to the ACA is that giving the government the authority to penalize people for activities that are not objectionable on their face is force we don't want the government to be able to employ. The entire idea that the government can penalize you for not entering into a contract with the people who bankrolled the law is anathema to good governance. There are a lot of good things in the ACA, that could probably pass and be signed swiftly, if the whole edifice just died. Unfortunately, the government has taken this new power, and is unlikely to ever give it up.
I wanted Barrett initially, but I am not sure she can be confirmed right now with the Senate mix, so now I think Kethledge.
If in the next two years SCOTUS loses either Ginsburg or Breyer, Trump will have a larger majority in the Senate and should nominate Barrett at that time. That will, of course, cause unhinged mass hysteria from the Left (yes, even more than now).
Pookie Number 2 said...
"The Obamcare obsession in TrumpWorld is so interesting to me. I presume that it is all personal, wrapped up in a personal loathing of Obama and entirely divorced from reality."
Well, if there’s anyone that knows how much “personal loathing” can divorce someone from reality, it’s our own admitted liar Chuck. And we give him props for acknowledging that his interpretations are based on his own ignorant and malicious presumptions.
"...admitted liar..."?!?
Where'd you get that?
"The only specifically "diverse" issue I've heard thoughtfully discussed was the push to get a non-Harvard justice on the court."
-- A lot of blogs and people specifically recommended getting a woman to make their vote against Roe v Wade, if it somehow came down to a vote, better a woman cast it, was the reasoning. They'd be less likely to get the hate flowing. Then there were some (I think one of the Hot Air writers was the first place I saw it) who said, if the goal is that, don't pick a woman, because the hate would be colossal.
So, it has come up, but mainly in a strategic sense more than a check the box sense.
Where'd you get that?
“I want to smear him”
Matthew, don't you have to buy car insurance, or waive your right to own and drive a car?
Again, you are mistaking me for making a policy argument that I am not. You don't have to buy into the insurance mandate if you don't want to. It's okay with me. But no common sense person would insist that insurers cover everybody by law, and yet also not require everyone to purchase insurance or pay a penalty.
It's like allowing people to buy fire insurance once a fire starts, but before the whole house burns down, and by law, the fire insurance company has to sell you the policy.
Again, you can disagree and say that there shouldn't be any mandate to buy insurance, and there shouldn't be any mandate on insurers to cover all preexisting conditions. But those decisions and value judgments get made by legislatures all the time. Legislatures decide what the tax rates are. Legislatures decide whether there is an income tax, or a consumption tax, or a value added sales tax. We elect representatives to make those choices for us in a representative democracy. They decide whether we get taxed for buying gasoline, or driving x-number of miles, or purchasing a vehicle of a given value.
Sometimes legislatures make good choices and write good laws, and sometimes they don't. I don't think the courts should be super-legislatures. I don't think courts should decide, for instance, if they have superior wisdom on things like abortion laws or gun control laws.
Don't pretend that you've got some simple obvious answer here, Matthew, because you don't.
Of those three, my preference is still Kavanaugh.
Gahrie: Most modern forms of execution have been developed to be less "cruel" than hanging and the firing squad. I don't see how you could make the argument that punishments today are more cruel and unusual than punishments then.
Less "cruel" based on whose definition of "cruel"?
Gahrie: I would say that makes them legal...but I really wouldn't have a problem with the determination that only forms of punishment in use at the time the Constitution were written are legal.
Would you have a problem with the determination that only forms of punishment in use at the time the Constitution was written are illegal?
Pookie Number 2 said...
Where'd you get that?
“I want to smear him"
That's not a lie. I hate Trump, and I do want to smear him. I loathe Trump personally; I don't want to help him, and I hope that some bad thing happens to him, sooner rather than later, and most preferably by operation of law. Trump has been a complete asshole and I like to see assholes get their comeuppance(s).
"Matthew, don't you have to buy car insurance, or waive your right to own and drive a car?"
-- No, you actually don't. If you want to drive the car on certain roads, you do.
"But no common sense person would insist that insurers cover everybody by law, and yet also not require everyone to purchase insurance or pay a penalty."
-- Which is one of the many reasons conservatives and Republicans thought we should kill the bill. Because from its foundation, it was built on terrible ideas that would never hold.
Kethledge is more of an unknown- that is just my opinion in the matter.
That's not a lie.
Understood - and once you declared for one and all to see that your animosity toward Trump overrode your integrity, we all perceived you to be the admittedly dishonest asshole that you are.
This isn’t complicated, but I get that your aversion to truth makes it hard for you.
Okay, Matthew for the third time I say it is fine with me if you want to disagree with the wisdom and utility of the ACA. And you can disagree as to whether procedurally, it was a law that comported with federal tax law. (Those are some very technical and complicated issues, to be sure.)
But you are spouting off the old Tea Party bullshit that any old coot at a rally understands why the ACA was really totally obviously unconstitutional and any fool could see why. And what I am saying, it isn't that obvious or simple at all.
Trump seems to specialize in communicating with those folks on the basis of simplistic untruths. Bullshitting them.
I still think Trump will choose Amy Barrett, it just makes so much sense because we need a conservative woman on the count. Let the liberal Democrats get crazy, it'll just help the Republicans and our country in November.
Chuck said...
Matthew, don't you have to buy car insurance, or waive your right to own and drive a car?
I don't believe you are a lawyer. A real lawyer would know the obvious next answer to your argument. Since posting earlier I was wondering if you would make this stupid argument.
How many federal laws are there forcing you to buy car insurance?
Trump needs to pick someone who does not sleep with a pillow.
"A lot of blogs and people specifically recommended getting a woman to make their vote against Roe v Wade, if it somehow came down to a vote, better a woman cast it, was the reasoning. They'd be less likely to get the hate flowing."
I don't know which people you're referencing, Matthew, but they are idiots who should not be allowed to leave the house without a caretaker. Or liars.
Pookie Number 2 said...
"That's not a lie."
Understood - and once you declared for one and all to see that your animosity toward Trump overrode your integrity, we all perceived you to be the admittedly dishonest asshole that you are.
This isn’t complicated, but I get that your aversion to truth makes it hard for you.
There's no lie. I'm telling you straight up and openly, I hate Trump. I hate him personally. I hate him for his record of being a lying asshole himself. It isn't about policy. The Trump Administration has done some things I agree with. Some things that drive Democrats crazy; and I like them.
But there isn't any lying whatsoever about my ill will towards Trump personally. You haven't even attempted to point out a single untruth from me. I hate Trump. That is a 100% true statement of my personal feelings.
You should see a professional about that.
Achilles said...
Chuck said...
Matthew, don't you have to buy car insurance, or waive your right to own and drive a car?
I don't believe you are a lawyer. A real lawyer would know the obvious next answer to your argument. Since posting earlier I was wondering if you would make this stupid argument.
How many federal laws are there forcing you to buy car insurance?
None that I am aware of. States do that. Has there been a successful Constitutional challenge to any state law mandating car insurance?
So instead, do you want to talk about "cars equipped with seat belts"? That's 49 USC Chapter 301.
Is that what you wanted? To make this a federalism question?
Chuck said...
Again, you can disagree and say that there shouldn't be any mandate to buy insurance, and there shouldn't be any mandate on insurers to cover all preexisting conditions. But those decisions and value judgments get made by legislatures all the time. Legislatures decide what the tax rates are. Legislatures decide whether there is an income tax, or a consumption tax, or a value added sales tax. We elect representatives to make those choices for us in a representative democracy. They decide whether we get taxed for buying gasoline, or driving x-number of miles, or purchasing a vehicle of a given value.
How many federal income taxes were there before February 3, 1913 Chuck?
Not a trick question.
You come here and condescend to people who know more than you and are smarter than you.
It is the combination of your smug condescension and your utter disingenuousness that cause everyone to treat you like the piece of shit you are.
Max Boot was honest enough to leave the republican party and admit he is a true globalist stooge. Not smart, just honest.
Just waiting on you.
Achilles said...
...
I don't believe you are a lawyer.
Wanna bet? Let's bet. Please. But in this particular case, it is going to have to be for an awful lot of money. More money than I am guessing that you have.
"Max Boot was honest enough to leave the republican party and admit he is a true globalist stooge. Not smart, just honest."
I strongly disagree with your conclusion.
Chuck said...
None that I am aware of. States do that. Has there been a successful Constitutional challenge to any state law mandating car insurance?
So instead, do you want to talk about "cars equipped with seat belts"? That's 49 USC Chapter 301.
Is that what you wanted? To make this a federalism question?
We were discussing how Obamacare was unconstitutional you moron.
The federal government does not have the power to force people to buy something. Not through a tax or by law or whatever other stupid crap you and your leftist friends can come up with.
You were led around to this conclusion by someone you condescended to as a "Trumpkin."
If you want to come in with that attitude I am going to humiliate you.
I would expect someone of average intelligence to have made at least one of the steps I made in argumentation on their own. You couldn't even do that.
You are a pathetic lawyer at best. Most likely a fraud.
Chuck said...
Achilles said...
...
I don't believe you are a lawyer.
Wanna bet? Let's bet. Please. But in this particular case, it is going to have to be for an awful lot of money. More money than I am guessing that you have.
If you are a lawyer other lawyers will be embarrassed that you are one.
You are an idiot. You were led in around the most basic logic exercise like a 6th grader.
I have met a few stupid lawyers who were good at memorizing and faking answers on the bar. You must be one of those.
"But you are spouting off the old Tea Party bullshit that any old coot at a rally understands why the ACA was really totally obviously unconstitutional and any fool could see why."
-- My position was the government couldn't force you to do it, but create tax penalties and incentives to shepherd behavior in a given direction. Since the Obama administration claimed it wasn't a tax, then well, it was more than likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court solved the problem by saying: "This is obviously a tax, even if you sold it to people saying it wasn't and insisted it wasn't, it is on its face an obvious tax." Which solved the constitutional problems, but left the "it is a stupid idea" problems.
Wanna bet? Let's bet. Please. But in this particular case, it is going to have to be for an awful lot of money. More money than I am guessing that you have. - Chuck
Do you realize just how childish and stupid you sound?
"Claiming that someone who is in the country illegally is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is silly. "
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, participating in the debate, stated the following: "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
So then if the child born here of immigrants is automatically granted citizenship in the mother country then would the jurisdiction of the United States no longer apply? Asking for a friend.
so, Chuck is SO UNSURE of whether or not He is a Lawyer; that he'll only enter a bet (a bet that He initiated) if it is for More money than the challenged has.
If you Really Were a lawyer, Chuck; you'd know that you Were a lawyer, and therefore would be willing to accept Any Bet; Any Time.
Instead, YOU are the one
A) demanding (begging? Please?) the bet
B) demanding that this bet be for so much that there will be no bet.
If you could do BASIC LOGIC, you'd see that your statement LESSENS the persuasiveness of your argument .
Jim at said...
Wanna bet? Let's bet. Please. But in this particular case, it is going to have to be for an awful lot of money. More money than I am guessing that you have. - Chuck
Do you realize just how childish and stupid you sound?
No I don't feel childish or stupid; Achilles keeps saying I'm not a lawyer. I feel like I could (a) make some money and (b) shut him up, with just one deal. I'm a dealmaker. People say I am such a great dealmaker. A dealmaker so great, you'll say, "Chuck, stop it already! Your deals are so great!" Just a terrific dealmaker. Everybody agrees, believe me.
gilbar said...
so, Chuck is SO UNSURE of whether or not He is a Lawyer; that he'll only enter a bet (a bet that He initiated) if it is for More money than the challenged has.
If you Really Were a lawyer, Chuck; you'd know that you Were a lawyer, and therefore would be willing to accept Any Bet; Any Time.
Instead, YOU are the one
A) demanding (begging? Please?) the bet
B) demanding that this bet be for so much that there will be no bet.
If you could do BASIC LOGIC, you'd see that your statement LESSENS the persuasiveness of your argument .
No, it isn't that. It is that by proving who I am and that I really am a lawyer, I'd be exposing my identity to all of you hateful fucking animals.
"These "philosopher Kings" will rule over us for the next 20-40 years. All that matters is how they will rule.
But instead of caring about that, conservatives focus in on:.."
--
Or who's "hot".
It's also pretty unusual to have essentially a lifetime appointment to a "supreme" position of which one has never occupied at a lower level.
I know..folks will scream "But Scalia!!".
Scalia had a special fondness for Kagan.
Chuck reveals..
"I'm telling you straight up and openly, I hate Trump."
Please make that a signature in every post. (for the newcomers)
although..earlier you had a good one that you didn't care about results, you're set...insulated.
Maybe you can combine the two.
If Hugh Hewitt likes Kethledge, he is a no-no. Hewitt is a Bush conservative - RINO.
I've listened to Hewitt for over 10 years, out here in California, and to be honest, he's not a conservative.
You haven't even attempted to point out a single untruth from me.
I don’t need to. The issue at hand was whether you’re an admitted liar. You’ve acknowledged that you want to ‘smear’ him, so point proven.
None of this is in the least bit surprising. But it’s wonderful watching you embody Trump’s worst elements while lying to yourself about it.
I'm Sorry, i was late to this thread; and i need to apologize. I just read Chuck saying in regards to O'Bama care that: ". If not, or if you were working-poor, an health care exchange plan was available; often costing $50 to $150 per month, for some really good coverage. Better than many employer-based plans."
Chuck, do You have O'Bama care coverage?
Chuck, i HAVE O'Bama care coverage. I'm not working poor, so i don't know what prices they pay (i pay $947/month); but i DO know what their 'really good coverage' is like; because I have the same policy they do.
It has a $6,000 deductible. It covers NOTHING until that limit is reached.
Again, i apologize, i thought that i was responding to someone that was Not That Stupid
Democrats are most scared of Coney Barrett. You can tell because Chuck put her 2nd to show everyone that he's not afraid of her and would even choose her over one of the other ones! Similarly, the Democrats aren't really attacking her hoping that Trump just won't notice her.
Trump has done very well on most everything he's been presented with during his year and a half in office, I hope he continues his winning streak and picks Coney Barrett.
gilbar said...
I'm Sorry, i was late to this thread; and i need to apologize. I just read Chuck saying in regards to O'Bama care that: ". If not, or if you were working-poor, an health care exchange plan was available; often costing $50 to $150 per month, for some really good coverage. Better than many employer-based plans."
Chuck, do You have O'Bama care coverage?
Chuck, i HAVE O'Bama care coverage. I'm not working poor, so i don't know what prices they pay (i pay $947/month); but i DO know what their 'really good coverage' is like; because I have the same policy they do.
It has a $6,000 deductible. It covers NOTHING until that limit is reached.
Again, i apologize, i thought that i was responding to someone that was Not That Stupid
Is "O'Bama" the Irish Republican Care plan?
What would your care cost if you had an employer paying for it? I'm not saying that the ACA was perfect, or even good! My biggest gripe with it all along was that it endeavored to get the maximum number of people covered, with little regard for anything else. The ACA did little or nothing to bend the horrendous cost curve in US health care.
But again, these are all questions that Trump hasn't answered or even debated. All that Trump has done is to throw out magical, utterly undeliverable promises on health care.
@gilbar
Is that family or single person? My family Cigna coverage through work is ~$900/month and we have $3000 in network deductible.
I'm actually happy with my health insurance as is - curious what Obamacare options there are though if I can ever make enough trading Bitcoin to leave day job.
Gretchen said...
Trump needs to pick someone who does not sleep with a pillow.
Trump needs to pick someone who does not bite a pillow.
No more David Souters!!!!!
(Chuck avoids gilbar's question)
Trumpit said
Perversions you are well versed in in 2018.
No that would be you faggot.
Or should I say progressive? Same thing.
How many federal laws are there forcing you to buy car insurance?
If you are on a federal facility (e.g., military base, DOE facility) you damn well better have proof of insurance). And if you are riding a motorcycle better be wearing a helmet even if the state where the facility is located doesn't require one.
Matthew Sablan said...
-- My position was the government couldn't force you to do it, but create tax penalties and incentives to shepherd behavior in a given direction. Since the Obama administration claimed it wasn't a tax, then well, it was more than likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court solved the problem by saying: "This is obviously a tax, even if you sold it to people saying it wasn't and insisted it wasn't, it is on its face an obvious tax." Which solved the constitutional problems, but left the "it is a stupid idea" problems.
What kind of tax is it?
Why don't we have a federal consumption tax?
Why are there only taxes on income at the federal level?
Obamacare was unconstitutional on it's face. The federal government does not have the power to require you to buy something. It can give you a deduction if you buy something. But there is no "penalty" income tax.
What Roberts did was pathetic.
Chuck said...
No I don't feel childish or stupid; Achilles keeps saying I'm not a lawyer. I feel like I could (a) make some money and (b) shut him up, with just one deal. I'm a dealmaker. People say I am such a great dealmaker. A dealmaker so great, you'll say, "Chuck, stop it already! Your deals are so great!" Just a terrific dealmaker. Everybody agrees, believe me.
Stupid people don't feel stupid.
They just look stupid.
Freder Frederson said...
How many federal laws are there forcing you to buy car insurance?
If you are on a federal facility (e.g., military base, DOE facility) you damn well better have proof of insurance). And if you are riding a motorcycle better be wearing a helmet even if the state where the facility is located doesn't require one.
Words number 6 and 7 of your stupid little post are important.
The stupid is strong in this thread.
Words number 6 and 7 of your stupid little post are important.
You asked if there were federal laws requiring car insurance, and I gave an example.
Sorry if I am too stupid to see where the stupid is.
If you get a ticket on a Federal facility, you go to federal, not state or municipal court.
Blogger Chuck said...Matthew, don't you have to buy car insurance, or waive your right to own and drive a car?
--
Separate issues.
A collector, for example, can own a car without insurance.
Driving it on state and federally regulated roadways triggers registration and insurance requirements.
Why are there only taxes on income at the federal level?
Really?! There aren't excise taxes at the Federal level. I want my Federal gas tax back!
No that would be you faggot.
Or should I say progressive? Same thing.
What are you? In eighth grade?
"You asked if there were federal laws requiring car insurance, and I gave an example.
It's an interesting question. I can't find any evidence to support your answer, Freder. Can you direct me to a source for verification? Thanks.
Buster @ 7/6/18, 9:39 AM: Did Professor White teach a course called Law and Literature?
No, that would be Professor James B. White, as opposed to Professor James J. White who was referenced in the speech by Judge Kavanaugh.
JJ had been a fighter pilot and I think was still serving in the reserves during his teaching years. An example of his "predatory" sense of humor that I remember was his opinion that the expense of fitting cockpits with ejection seats was wasteful from a military standpoint.
His Commercial Transactions course did help get me through the Massachusetts bar exam, a two day affair with a day of essay questions after the multi-state exam day. As I finished my answer to one question, I realized that the debt instrument described in the question was not negotiable, which completely changed the result. So I started a new paragraph with "However," and kept writing.
Freder Frederson said...
Why are there only taxes on income at the federal level?
Really?! There aren't excise taxes at the Federal level. I want my Federal gas tax back!
The federal government was granted the power to collect duties, imposts, and excise taxes to provide for the general defense and welfare of the United States.
It later added the ability to tax income through amendment.
Nowhere in there is there anything about a tax on individuals to force them to buy insurance from a private insurance company.
But I can see how that would be confusing to a prog.
I can't find any evidence to support your answer, Freder. Can you direct me to a source for verification?
I speak from personal experience. I got a ticket driving on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds and was asked for proof of insurance. As far as motorcycle helmet laws there were (last time I was there) signs at the entrances to Forts Riley and Leavenworth notifying riders of the requirement (eventhough at the time helmets were not required in Kansas).
Freder Frederson said...
Words number 6 and 7 of your stupid little post are important.
You asked if there were federal laws requiring car insurance, and I gave an example.
Actually you posted something that was tangential at best and was actually just in the end really stupid.
Unexpectedly.
Next you will say we are all on federal land...
If I was in the eight grade Trumpit would try to molest me.
That's what they do.
No I don't feel childish or stupid;
Of course not.
I don't think you're a deal maker. A patent lawyer maybe. Definitely real estate.
The answer to my question is "it's complicated."
It appears that federal law enforcement officers are allowed to enforce state traffic regulations in some situations without technically adopting those regulations as federal law.
I'd say that you and whoever it was you were arguing with are each partially right.
"Max Boot republican" Chuck: "No I don't feel childish or stupid;"
Neither does Maxine Waters or Antifa.
And then you also have the District of Columbia.
(Chuck still avoids gilbar's question)
I just don’t understand how anyone who genuinely cares about the United States and it’s citizens can honestly write that they hate Trump. Do you LIKE it that so many people had been out of work so long that they’d given up hope?
walter said...
(Chuck still avoids gilbar's question)
What is bothering you? is the burning question, "Have I ever purchased an ACA marketplace policy?" The answer is yes, I have. In the past. And with the marketplace policy, I had a smaller co-insurance than I do with my current BCBSM group policy.
Now how did that help with this discussion?
What is it, with the completely inordinate personal attention on me. If the personal focus is going to be on me, I want something out of it. I want a bet -- a gigantic bet -- with Achilles on whether or not I am really a licensed attorney.
I want your money, Achilles. As much of it as I can possibly grab. Let's bet. Bet, or you stfu.
Chuck,
The question actually was
"Chuck, do You have O'Bama care coverage?"
The issue was your clear avoidance of his question and what he was driving at.
You know that.
Drop the butthurt routine.
Not sure if Chuck is rhetoric, trolling, or a combination to make a point.
I have a bit of anger about what and how Hillary and the Obama administration governed, but I don't hate them. I"m surprised at the intensity of what Chuck wrote.
Trump is Trump, and has a lot of negatives (cheating on his wife is a big one with me), but I"m pretty happy with what his administration has done. I wish they would get more done, but with the resistance he has encountered, it's amazing what he has achieved. Especially with the Senate being on a knifes edge for the so called Republican Majority. Thinking of the Senate, McCain comes to mind and I view him as worse than Trump, but I don't hate him.
> I'm telling you straight up and openly, I hate Trump. I hate him personally. I hate
> him for his record of being a lying asshole himself
Blogger Crimso said...
Lastly, she's hot. If she were a President, she'd be Baberaham Lincoln. If she were a Justice she'd be Ruth Baber Ginsburg.
dying
Another person interviewed by Trump -- "Amul Thapar: Trump Country's Perfect SCOTUS Choice":
Thapar, the son of Indian immigrants who came to America legally, is the product of public schools in Toledo, Ohio. He was the first ever judge of South Asian descent appointed to the federal bench and would be the first person of any Asian heritage appointed to the Supreme Court.
Thapar is a history-making choice for a president who loves to make history. Trump often zigs when other presidents would have zagged, as the Washington Post noted this weekend, and he can again defy “the swamp” by appointing someone like Thapar who is squarely from outside of it. ...
Liberals are already freaking out about Thapar. They are so worried about him, in fact, that liberal donors are funding an ad campaign against him before he’s even been chosen. If the president is looking to torment the people most unhappy with his presidency, Thapar is a great choice. ...
The son of immigrants raised in Toledo, who sits on a federal appeals court that covers the heart of Trump Country (Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee and Michigan). A rock-solid conservative and defender of the U.S. Constitution. A conservative jurist who reveres Clarence Thomas.
Henry said...
"Based on reading my fellow commenters, I guess no one is acceptable. We should just give Justice Thomas two votes."
Works for me.
Politico is pushing Kavanaugh. That means he is bad for the law and bad for America.
Chuck said...
What is it, with the completely inordinate personal attention on me. If the personal focus is going to be on me, I want something out of it. I want a bet -- a gigantic bet -- with Achilles on whether or not I am really a licensed attorney.
You came in on this thread and called us Trumpkins inferring we didn't know anything and that we were less intelligent than you.
I humiliated you.
You said stupid shit. You got destroyed in a debate in every way you can get destroyed.
Theoretically the whole point of 4 years of lawyer training is to learn how to carry on a critical discussion and perform logical reasoning.
You have none none of those skills.
I want your money, Achilles. As much of it as I can possibly grab. Let's bet. Bet, or you stfu.
It must be humiliating to be so clearly outclassed.
You want to claim to be a lawyer go for it. I have met many stupid lawyers.
But just realize you are no better than anyone else that posts here and certainly not even of average intelligence in this room.
“Theoretically the whole point of 4 years of lawyer training is to learn how to carry on a critical discussion and perform logical reasoning.”
Law school is three years, dummy.
“I want your money, Achilles. As much of it as I can possibly grab. Let's bet. Bet, or you stfu.”
Achilles has no money. He wouldn’t have had to send out his pregnant wife to work if he had money.
“Stupid people don't feel stupid.”
You can attest to this on a personal level.
Althouse said... I remember when John Roberts seemed like perfection in a Supreme Court nominee, but things have changed.
Ann Coulter and some others on the right strongly criticized the Roberts nomination.
What religion (if any) is Kethledge?
He's an Anglican.
Why in the world would you believe that Politico knows what's going on in the Trump Administration?
Post a Comment