[The Urban Sombrero]

Textualism, taken to an extreme, can entrench inequality and the tyranny of the majority for a long, long time. See the history of racial discrimination in the South.

[The Urban Sombrero]

And, I see you are a "State's rights" guy, in the great tradition of George Wallace, "establish justice" left to the tyranny of the majority.

[The Urban Sombrero]

19th Amendment? 1920...so, for the first, oh, 140 years women could not vote. I guess if you are a white man, hey, that's cool. But, if you are part of a group being DENIED JUSTICE? Not so cool.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Let me guess, ol Hoot, you be a white dude? Rhetorical question

[Hoot Gibson]

Let me guess, ol Hoot, you be a white dude? Rhetorical question

Let me guess, Mexican Hat, you be a fake scientist with an imaginary phD on another website. Rhetorical question.

[The Urban Sombrero]

Rhetorically speaking, you be mistaken. Also, technically, the urban Sombrero is not Mexican, so you don't have to hate it.

[Hoot Gibson]

Mexican Hat, why would anyone hate a hat because of its ethnic origin? A hat often serves a useful purpose, such as protecting a brain from the damaging effects of UV radiation. I commend you on your choice of a sombrero as it is a great defense against the light of day. A pair of dark sunglasses, and few people will recognize you.

Let me guess, are you a constitutional lawyer? Rhetorical question.

[64SUR]

You guys are way over my head. :pondering:

[Hoot Gibson]

You guys are way over my head. :pondering:

My explanation will probably not help, but some posters have been wrong so many times on such a wide array of topics, that they flee BGR to avoid further embarrassment. Then, after a few months, they wear out their welcome elsewhere (or just get homesick) and decide to engage in something akin to do-it-yourself witness relocation, but instead of relocating to a place where nobody recognizes them, they return to their former home.

Often, such people assume new identities such as science professors with advanced degrees or constitutional law experts. Of course, it would be much easier to pass oneself off as a hamburger chef or a low level bureaucrat, but their goal is to add gravitas to their lightweight posts.

Hopefully, my hypothetical examples have been helpful.

[Demarcus ware]

My explanation will probably not help, but some posters have been wrong so many times on such a wide array of topics, that they flee BGR to avoid further embarrassment. Then, after a few months, they wear out their welcome elsewhere (or just get homesick) and decide to engage in something akin to do-it-yourself witness relocation, but instead of relocating to a place where nobody recognizes them, they return to their former home.

Often, such people assume new identities such as science professors with advanced degrees or constitutional law experts. Of course, it would be much easier to pass oneself off as a hamburger chef or a low level bureaucrat, but their goal is to add gravitas to their lightweight posts.

Hopefully, my hypothetical examples have been helpful.

#TeamHootandTheRealThing nicker:

[The Urban Sombrero]

Now, 64SUR, I am neither a fake scientist, nor a brain-damaged, witless dolt booted off so many sites I hopelessly landed on BGR. I basically am not a huge fan of textualism as a be all, end all way of utilizing the United States Constitution. I am a respecter of Justice Scalia as a brilliant mind and jurist, though I disagreed with him a lot. "Hoot Gibson" makes a lot of assumptions. I respect the Constitution, and the wealthy white men who wrote it, but I don't worship either as perfect. That's about it.

[The Urban Sombrero]

By the way, ol Hoot, if you are a white man, then no wonder you love textualism applied with vigor and rigor to the Constitution.

[The Urban Sombrero]

"We the people, in order to form a more perfect union, establish Justice...". Ask a Native American what that" Justice" meant in their case? (See the Trail of Tears)

[Hoot Gibson]

The Constitution was not intended to be "utilized." The Constitution was intended to protect American citizens' rights from the federal government. The federal government was intended to derive its power only from the consent of the governed.

[TheRealThing]

"Textualism" was Scalia's preferred designation I think. So, OK, the original intent of the Framers did not include women voting and allowed black skinned human beings to be regarded as property, like a couch or a cow. At that time, there were voices decrying slavery, and even a few the non-entity status of women. What this suggests is that the Framers, men of great intellect and vision for sure, were yet but men, captives of their time, subject to the foible and frailty of all. And, yes, it is true, of course, that the Constitution was amended to end slavery and the price was a brutal and bloody civil war, and women did get the vote after much protest. How does that change the point made about the Framers? Surely you do not count as godlike perfection their stances on slavery and women?

I used the word I intended to use. 'Originalism', is the word that Scalia chose to define his own interpretive approach in times past, and that will do for me. And you should know I don't normally pursue a liberal into La-La Land, as the quest to discover my personal identity is long over. In any case, DNC generated talking points barely manage to rise to the level of being superficial as a rule, and man will always be limited by his own foibiliies. The question is whether a society filled with self proclaimed geniuses, untested by any form of sacrifice or tribulation at all, much less the profound level experienced by force of will of the founders, are worthy to second guess their intentions.

Therefore I disagree with the premise of your posturing, in suggesting men are nowadays more enlightened than Jefferson or James Madison. Man's sensibilities are not more highly evolved as the result of being born during our day. In fact, I would say the opposite is more likely the case, and there is much by way of pain in evidence to support the pitfalls of moral decline. Insanity is on the rise as clinics are overrun with those stricken with guilt and shame desperately seek asylum from the haunting of their own consciences. Global unrest is the defining term of our day as the scourges that once beset only the undeveloped countries, now crowd in on Americans. Global terror, global economic meltdown, global wholesale slaughter of the unborn for the sake of personal convenience, all press in on us and there is precious little safe haven left for any of us.

I like Scalia's interpretation of the function of law and the court, and we will miss him.

[Hoot Gibson]

By the way, ol Hoot, if you are a white man, then no wonder you love textualism applied with vigor and rigor to the Constitution.

A little bit of legal jargon will go a long way. You are wearing it out.

[64SUR]

Now, 64SUR, I am neither a fake scientist, nor a brain-damaged, witless dolt booted off so many sites I hopelessly landed on BGR. I basically am not a huge fan of textualism as a be all, end all way of utilizing the United States Constitution. I am a respecter of Justice Scalia as a brilliant mind and jurist, though I disagreed with him a lot. "Hoot Gibson" makes a lot of assumptions. I respect the Constitution, and the wealthy white men who wrote it, but I don't worship either as perfect. That's about it.

Amen!! SOMBRERO I appreciate you for finding BGR. eriously:

[TheRealThing]

Now, 64SUR, I am neither a fake scientist, nor a brain-damaged, witless dolt booted off so many sites I hopelessly landed on BGR. I basically am not a huge fan of textualism as a be all, end all way of utilizing the United States Constitution. I am a respecter of Justice Scalia as a brilliant mind and jurist, though I disagreed with him a lot. "Hoot Gibson" makes a lot of assumptions. I respect the Constitution, and the wealthy white men who wrote it, but I don't worship either as perfect. That's about it.

I suspect the scope and history of your criticisms of Justice Scalia's writings falls somewhere between nonexistent and extremely limited. I've heard the term 'towering intellect' used often since yesterday afternoon to describe the man's genius. It's a shame you two could not get together to hit constitutional law around a bit. :biggrin:

[TheRealThing]

Now, 64SUR, I am neither a fake scientist, nor a brain-damaged, witless dolt booted off so many sites I hopelessly landed on BGR. I basically am not a huge fan of textualism as a be all, end all way of utilizing the United States Constitution. I am a respecter of Justice Scalia as a brilliant mind and jurist, though I disagreed with him a lot. "Hoot Gibson" makes a lot of assumptions. I respect the Constitution, and the wealthy white men who wrote it, but I don't worship either as perfect. That's about it.

So, you're saying there is something better than a clear understanding of what was written, to determine the meaning of what was written?

[64SUR]

I suspect the scope and history of your criticisms of Justice Scalia's writings falls somewhere between nonexistent and extremely limited. I've heard the term 'towering intellect' used often since yesterday afternoon to describe the man's genius. It's a shame you two could not get together to hit constitutional law around a bit. :biggrin:

Hey TheRealThung I haven't said nothing bad about Scalia. Scalia will be missed but we must moved on. And president Obama has the right to nominate a candidate period.....Republican will do what they do best Blocked anything and everything. :worthy:

[The Urban Sombrero]

If you white gentlemen are suggesting one must actually be on the SCOTUS in order to discuss the SCOTUS, well, hello, Justice Alito. Alas, I have not read every jot and tittle of Justice Scalia's work, but I did personally attend a debate between he and Justice Breyer. Both men did the Supreme Court proud. The difference between saying a man has a "brilliant mind" and saying he has a "towering intellect" I do not think is anything but semantics.

[Hoot Gibson]

Hey TheRealThung I haven't said nothing bad about Scalia. Scalia will be missed but we must moved on. And president Obama has the right to nominate a candidate period.....Republican will do what they do best Blocked anything and everything. :worthy:

I hope that you are right about the Republicans for a change. :biggrin:

[Hoot Gibson]

If you white gentlemen are suggesting one must actually be on the SCOTUS in order to discuss the SCOTUS, well, hello, Justice Alito. Alas, I have not read every jot and tittle of Justice Scalia's work, but I did personally attend a debate between he and Justice Breyer. Both men did the Supreme Court proud. The difference between saying a man has a "brilliant mind" and saying he has a "towering intellect" I do not think is anything but semantics.

Your abnormal focus on race does not make your arguments any more credible. In fact, it undermines your credibility and lowers expectations - and my expectations are already pretty low.

[TheRealThing]

As to the insignificance of The Urban Sombrero when compared to the Framers... relevance to the point made about slavery and misogyny? None...except it made you stick in your thumb and pull out a plum and say "what a clever boy am I."

Whew, you've been boning up on your liberal talking points and the associated verbiage. The point was, your point was, not well taken in light of who was being critical of who. And that is one of the standout presumptions of the left. "It's easier to be critical than correct"----Benjamin Disreali

[TheRealThing]

Your abnormal focus on race does not make your arguments any more credible. In fact, it undermines your credibility and lowers expectations - and my expectations are already pretty low.

Oh Hoot, you know a little prejudice is okay toward those nasty, rich white guys.

[The Urban Sombrero]

A point to consider is the race and gender of the Framers. For a long stretch of American history, being white and male gave one a huge advantage, and if a wealthy land owner, as were the Framers, even better. I am not saying white Americans are evil. I am not saying you particular white men haven't earned whatever you have. I am making no assumption except that you are white and male. That makes you a privileged group in American history. That's not even controversial. The gender and race and social status of the Framers mattered, and it makes textualism or original intent or whatever you want to call it an imperfect way of establishing and preserving a land of freedom and equality for all.

[jetpilot]

1. Have a very long vetting process ala Bork and then reject.
2. Start all over with the second nominee ala Douglas Ginsburg and then reject or make go away.
3. Either reset and start from scratch (my choice) or settle for a centrist nominee ala Anthony Kennedy. RINOs will probably try to go the settle route.

If I'm in charge no one is confirmed while Obama is President under any circumstances. Lots of precedent by Dems doing it and much worse. Payback is a bitch. Any Republican who votes to confirm an Obama nominee should never get elected again.

[The Urban Sombrero]

If "we the people" did not include women and dark skinned people in the "we," that matters.

[TheRealThing]

Hey TheRealThung I haven't said nothing bad about Scalia. Scalia will be missed but we must moved on. And president Obama has the right to nominate a candidate period.....Republican will do what they do best Blocked anything and everything. :worthy:

Okay 64, I'll pay attention to you. Harry Reid changed the Senate rules in order to pass ObamaCare and appoint judges with a simple majority. IDK, there's something about the word simple, that rings charismatic where Dems are concerned, wouldn't you agree? Then, after an emergency midnight secret session open only to Democrats on the eve of Scott Brown's scheduled arrival at the US Senate, which by the way would have given Republicans a 51 no vote majority, simple or not, the lovable Mr Reid proceeded to write the book on effecting a four year congressional gridlock. Mr Reid failed to bring up mountains of legislation emanating from the lower house, so I would think McConnell should be able to get by with a friendly little stall with regard to just one issue of national import.

[TheRealThing]

A point to consider is the race and gender of the Framers. For a long stretch of American history, being white and male gave one a huge advantage, and if a wealthy land owner, as were the Framers, even better. I am not saying white Americans are evil. I am not saying you particular white men haven't earned whatever you have. I am making no assumption except that you are white and male. That makes you a privileged group in American history. That's not even controversial. The gender and race and social status of the Framers mattered, and it makes textualism or original intent or whatever you want to call it an imperfect way of establishing and preserving a land of freedom and equality for all.

You're white RV