McCain Would Criminalize Gays

[construct]

Yes, they can reverse themselves.

You are confusing the meanings of "reverse" and "overrule." They are not synonyms.

 

[Spensed]

"Strict constructionist"? Hardly.
That's what he says, but it isn't what he means. What he means is "strict constructionist modified by my authoritarian theocratic views". Scalia is no constructionist at all; he acknowledges only the principles he likes, and ignores others -- like, freedom of association.
I groan and laugh at the same time when McCain and other Republicans talk about liberals legislating from the bench -- which is true -- because that's exactly what they yearn to do....

Completely agree.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are confusing the meanings of "reverse" and "overrule." They are not synonyms.

After a little research, I don't think either word is right. "Overturn" is probably the one.

 

[construct]

Scalia's and Thomas's jurisprudence are not identical. Scalia purports to look behind the text for intent by searching legislative history. Thomas sticks much closer to text itself.

I don't really see any particular virtue in lables; so I leave it to others to sort out which approach is "strict constructionism" proper. But I have absolutely no use whatsoever for any canonical document that does not allow for enough hermeneutical flexibility to allow it to be useful beyond the period when it was written. So the last thing I would want in a Supreme Court justice is one who prides himself on being a "strict constructionist."

 

[construct]

After a little research, I don't think either word is right. "Overturn" is probably the one.

As far as I can tell, "overturn" and "overrule" are synonyms in this context. "Overrule" is the word Justice Kennedy used in Lawrence, and that case is far from unique in its overturning or overruling previous opinions. The point is that one cannot count of Lawrence surviving another Republican SCOTUS appointment. Spensed is right.

 

[Kulindahr]

But I have absolutely no use whatsoever for any canonical document that does not allow for enough hermeneutical flexibility to allow it to be useful beyond the period when it was written. So the last thing I would want in a Supreme Court justice is one who prides himself on being a "strict constructionist."

Changing the meaning is what amendments are for, not playing with what the words meant to those who wrote them. "Hermeneutical flexibility" is how we've seen the Fourth and Fifth amendments chipped and hacked away at.

As far as I can tell, "overturn" and "overrule" are synonyms in this context. "Overrule" is the word Justice Kennedy used in Lawrence, and that case is far from unique in its overturning or overruling previous opinions. The point is that one cannot count of Lawrence surviving another Republican SCOTUS appointment. Spensed is right.

"Overrule" would apply to a higher court dealing with a lower court's decision; "overturn" is applicable to a court 'reversing' its former position.

 

[iman]

Maybe not Alito:

Sen. John McCain has denied a report that he privately suggested Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito was too conservative, but columnist Robert Novak writes today that multiple sources confirm the presidential candidate made negative comments about Alito nine months ago.
McCain previously responded to the buzz started by a report Monday by the Wall Street Journal's John Fund, who wrote that the Arizona "has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito because 'he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.'"

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59979

 

[construct]

"Overrule" would apply to a higher court dealing with a lower court's decision; "overturn" is applicable to a court 'reversing' its former position.

Then Justice Kennedy used the wrong word.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then Justice Kennedy used the wrong word.

He was probably tired.



Seriously, I read somewhere that the justices often put in hundred-hour weeks.

 

[Spensed]

Maybe not Alito....

"I don't recall a conversation where I would have said that," McCain said, adding he's repeatedly said at town meetings, "We're going to have justices like Roberts and Alito."

That's from your own link.

And this is from the Fox News link I posted earier:

“I may have said something that I don’t recall, but the fact is that I have a clear record, both publicly and privately, of saying Alito and Roberts are what we want on the Supreme Court,” McCain said.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/02/03/mccain-pledges-to-appoint-conservative-judges/

It's probably a better bet to expect that someone's going to do what they say they're going to do rather than what they can't remember saying.

 

[LaloGS]

A Supreme court Justice should be neutral, and placed on the bench by appointment not because of their political affiliations, but rather because they are law scholars charged with reading and understanding the Constitution and Bill of Rights and addressing issues brought before it as if it were the bible for Democracy. Which it is. Bringing either liberal or conservative ideologies to the bench, will always fail to be an accurate interpretation of the words in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, for one political ideology or the other.

There is enough in the document to give appropriate direction without imposing political interpretations on the document. Should some anomaly arise in the country not covered in the Constitution, the Court should find that it is not covered, and then Congress can craft a bi-partisan amendment to be voted on by the citizens of the country.

That's how it should work, but when you are appointed by a president, you as a Justice of the Supreme court, feel entitled to apply your political bias to all of the decisions you need to make. It's fucked up just like everything else political in this country.

I guess I'm a more "Strict Constructionist" than any of the current Justices sitting on the bench. But I believe the Constitution and the Bill of rights consistently entitles every citizen the same rights and privileges. Interpreting those rights and privileges with a bias toward either liberal or conservative political ideologies is just wrong.

 

[Spensed]

^ The trouble is that no writing exists in a vacuum. There are always at least two sides to interpreting any text, the writer, the reader, the opinions of other readers, historians, biographers, etc., etc.

So, whoever interprets a text imports himself and more into the interpretation whether they like it or not.

As someone else pointed out, strict constructionism is a false notion of objectively because it's always selective. At the very least, it's a construction that is non-contemporaneous with writer so right there one's bringing new history to the text. And inevitably strict constructionists of the US Constitution almost always import right wing values and values that protect the people in power and the wealthy.

Almost every single gay organization was against the appointment of Alito and Roberts because, although Alito and Roberts aren't openly crazy bigots like Scalia, their judicial philosophies are, or are reliably predicted to be, as anti-gay as Scalia's.

Having an anti-gay majority on the Supreme Court would take gays back into the Dark Ages and set gay rights back at least a generation.

And that's what voting for McCain would do.

 

[uflyguy]

And we fear this guy can win?

Baby Bush managed to do it TWICE! I dont think its going to be a sure thing either way this year.

 

[Spensed]

McCain was criticized by the Senate Ethics Committee fo his role in the Keating Five scandal so, he what Bush did and "reformed", now McCain is careful to make sure he doesn't even appear to be influenced by lobbyists.

And, if you believe that, you'll believe anything.

 

[Kulindahr]

A Supreme court Justice should be neutral, and placed on the bench by appointment not because of their political affiliations, but rather because they are law scholars charged with reading and understanding the Constitution and Bill of Rights and addressing issues brought before it as if it were the bible for Democracy. Which it is. Bringing either liberal or conservative ideologies to the bench, will always fail to be an accurate interpretation of the words in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, for one political ideology or the other.

There is enough in the document to give appropriate direction without imposing political interpretations on the document. Should some anomaly arise in the country not covered in the Constitution, the Court should find that it is not covered, and then Congress can craft a bi-partisan amendment to be voted on by the citizens of the country.

That's how it should work, but when you are appointed by a president, you as a Justice of the Supreme court, feel entitled to apply your political bias to all of the decisions you need to make. It's fucked up just like everything else political in this country.

I guess I'm a more "Strict Constructionist" than any of the current Justices sitting on the bench. But I believe the Constitution and the Bill of rights consistently entitles every citizen the same rights and privileges. Interpreting those rights and privileges with a bias toward either liberal or conservative political ideologies is just wrong.

Well written, well stated, and dead on the mark.

A true constructionist judge would never get appointed these days: to Republicans he'd come across as too liberal, to most Democrats he'd be too conservative, and to many Americans he'd seem a nut case.

 

[Spensed]

Back to McCain criminalizing gays as a result of his judicial appointments, it's funny how so many guys are still in denial about that or pretend they are in their quest for attention.

 

[TheTalkingAsshole]

Since the title of this thread and it's connection to reality is tenuous at best, and doesn't really deserve response, I thought I'd pick off something even easier:

Funny part about McCain, isn't his daughter a lesbian?

No. Funny part about your facts...um, they aren't facts.

^ Yeah it seems that most Republicans, if they're not in the closet, they've got one somewhere.

Cite a source, please. At least you're open minded and not subject to using generalizations.

 

[Spensed]

^ A right wing majority on the Supreme Court would reverse Lawrence v. Texas, the case which decriminalized gay sex.

McCain has indicated that he would appoint more judges like Roberts and Alito, who would help reach that right wing majority and who were opposed by almost every gay organization in the country.

The result would be a re-criminalization of gay sex.

That's more of a connection with reality than ignoring the obvious.

 

[Centexfarmer]

now if he said McCain was a cunt ..........

then the thread would be removed - or changed

another bizarro world example of JUB

And who says you don't have a sense of humor?

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ Yeah it seems that most Republicans, if they're not in the closet, they've got one somewhere.

<snip>

Cite a source, please. At least you're open minded and not subject to using generalizations.

Alright, if you insist:

Anti-Gay Republican Outed as Gay, Resigns

ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN OUTED AS HOMOSEXUAL

Outed Republican Perverts

The Values Party: Yet Another Gay Republican Outed

ANOTHER Anti-Gay Republican Senator Outed as Homosexual

Pattern recognition

And that's just a sampling of the first page of a google search.

I could go on!

I especially liked this article:

The GOP's crowded closet

What else can I do for you?

Should I find news sources of Anti-Gay Republicans who have openly Gay relatives within their family, or just those with families who are Gay but in the closet?