Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be posted in the main articles.
Open thread: week may 6 to may 12, 2018
07 Monday May 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
Pumpkin Person
%d bloggers like this:
07 Monday May 2018
Posted in Uncategorized
Please post all off-topic comments for the week in this thread. They will not be posted in the main articles.
more details on the incompetence of american lawyers and judges.
Specifically, original intent was seen as lacking good answers to three important questions: whether a diverse group such as the framers even had a single intent IRRELEVANT; if they did, whether it could be determined from two centuries’ distance IRRELEVANT; and whether the framers themselves would have supported original intent. JEWISH
In response to this, a different strain of originalism, articulated by (among others) Antonin Scalia,[16] Robert Bork,[17] and Randy Barnett,[18] came to the fore. This is dubbed original meaning. RETARDED
Original meaning
Main article: Original meaning
Justice Oliver Wendell HolmesRETARD argued that interpreting what was meant by someone who wrote a law was not trying to “get into his mind” WHERE DOES MEANING RESIDE OLLIE THE FUCKTARD? because the issue was “not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal NORMAL? JESUS WHAT A FUCKING RETARD! speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used.” This is the essential precept of modern Originalism.
IF SWANK REALLY IS A T14 GRAD I THANK HIM.
I NOW HAVE A MUCH LOWER OPINION OF LAWYERS, JUDGES, AND LAW PROFESSORS THAN I HAD BEFORE, AND IT WAS PRETTY LOW BEFORE.
original meaning-ests assume two obviously false things:
1. the meaning of words is a THING outside the minds of those who use them, and dictionaries have more authority than The Federalist, because as eveyone knows dictionaries are not written by people but were handed to moses on mt sinai. FUCKTARDS!
2. the meaning of a law to a “normal” person is one THING, unlike the meaning to the group of people who actually passed a law, because there is one guy named “normal” who lives inside ollie holmes’s pants. FUCKTARDS!
why is there a congressional record? why is there hansard? swank can’t figure it out.
THIS UTTER FUCKTARDRY COULD NEVER COME FROM PEOPLE WITH UNDERGRADUATE DEGREES IN NON-IDEOLOGICAL/BULLSHIT SUBJECTS.
SAD!
A congressional record exists to help make a legal argument one way or the other, as far as the judiciary is concerned.
It’s bizarre that you can see how arbitrary the notion of a normal person is….but can’t take the next step to see how original intent is even more broad than that….
IT’S BIZARRE THAT YOU CAN’T READ.
AND CAN’T SEE HOW “NORMAL PERSON” IS LITERALLY A MILLION TIMES BROADER.
how is it broader?
a ‘normal person’ at the time of drafting = meanings that are fixed, at least in theory.
this broad notion of intent = all meanings and concepts that now attach to the word or the right or whatever are now in play. It’s not just taking the Framers through a time machine with their centuries old understandings of words and then having them apply those understandings as they were to how they see the world now, it’s also taking their concepts of everything and what it could mean through a time machine as well.
Lol so muggy is trying to get into the mind of a legislature….which has no mind.
It doesn’t exist. Neither does Sahara Claus. Stop crying….you had to grow up someday.
Ugh tablets….
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU SWANK-TARD?
LEARN TO READ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_intent#Problems
EVERYONE OF THESE OBJECTIONS DON’T PASS THE LAUGH TEST FOR ANYONE WHO ISN’T BRAIN DAMAGED OR JEWISH.
there’s this idea that plessy was overruled.
plessy said that segregation was legal as long as the quality of whatever was the same.
brown merely said that in the case of education separate was inherently unequal.
so it was just a disagreement about the facts not about the meaning of the 14th amendment.
and it was only for education. so subsequent desegregation was accomplished democratically not by SCOTUS. right?
referenda in many states passed with overwhelming majorities to define marriage as between one man and one woman. same sex marriage could not have been part of the original intent of the 14th amendment in extenso.
so the only originalist in intenso argument for Obergefell would be the “born that way” and “not mentally ill” and “capable of being a productive citizen” argument etc. AND that marriage was not intended to protect children but to solemnize, recognize, sacralize, etc. intimate relations between two people.
needless to say all of these claims are FALSE, but it could be that kennedy is so utterly retarded he believes them.
as you can see segregation in things other than education continued after brown.
The Greensboro sit-ins were a series of nonviolent protests in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1960,[2] which was one of the sit-ins that later led to the Woolworth department store chain removing its policy of racial segregation in the Southern United States.[3]
that’s technically correct, regarding Brown.
the gay marriage/gay rights opinions from the Court have been terrible, so….no comment.
Ethnic tribalism has no winners. You will be replaced, one way or another, there’s no way to win, only to have your time at the top of the barrel. Only way to win is not to play, it’s better if we all serve our ethnic genetic interests by working together.
Original intent presumes that there is a single, unified intent behind a text.NO IT DOESN’T YOU FUCKTARDS! AND EVEN IF IT DID THIS WOULD BE IRRELEVANT. …
Even if the Convention did have a single, unified intent, it is unclear how it could reliably be determined from two centuries’ distance. IT DOESN’T NEED TO YOU LOGIC CHALLENGED HUMANITIES MAJORING FUCKTARDS.
Many of the clauses of the Constitution are relative, and thus specifically defy any claim that it is possible to divine a single, indisputable outcome to any specific problem or dispute. IRRELEVANT Key passages in the Constitution were originally cast as flexible evaluations, such as “due process,” a phrase that suggests the definitions, requirements and dimensions of court or other governmental proceedings sufficient in any given context to permit citizens to be deprived of their rights were never intended to be fixed forever. WRONG! THEY ARE FIXED IN INTENSION JUST NOT IN EXTENSION.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intension
In the case of US Federal Law, law is made by majority vote in two chambers, and is then signed by the President. 536 people are therefore potentially involved in this process, and not one of them needs to share the same intentions as any other of them in order to play their part in ratifying the bill. They need only vote; their vote will count the same if they share the same intent as their colleagues, if they do not share the intent of their colleagues, and indeed, if they have no particular intention, and are voting solely because their party whip handed them a note saying “be on the Senate floor at 9:36pm and say ‘Aye’.” Their vote will count even if they are falling-down drunk or if they have not even read the bill under consideration.[7] All of which is to say that giving effect to the intent of the legislature not only presumes that there is a singular intent NO IT DOESN’T.– no less dubious an assertion where statutes are concerned than where the Constitution is – but, worse yet, the very diversity of these bodies may permit a judge to corrupt his inquiry by finding a floor statement or committee report which suggests an intent that the Judge thinks would be a good result. THAT’S IT! THE PROBLEM WITH ORIGINAL INTENT IS IT CORRUPTS JUDGES! JEWS GONNA JEW!
Original intent falls afoul of formalist theories of law, which explicitly decline interest in how a law is made, an inquiry which is obviously at the core of an original intent inquiry. IRRELEVANT
Original intent cannot be reconciled against Textualism. IRRELEVANT…
If you’re going to argue intension v. extension and especially that intension can be or should assumed to be fixed, then you are arguing in favor of ‘original meaning’ and textualism.
some would say that ‘freedom of speech’ is not a word like ‘circle’ in that there is a definite enough inherent model/symbol/meaning attached to it to allow for reliable application to reality. a textualist/original meaning-er would instead argue that they will artificially force (or moot the argument about) this ‘fixing,’ by utilizing its properties as they were understood during a certain time period by a certain person.
‘original intent’ grew out of the mischief rule, which itself later turned into the ‘purposive approach,’ which….is almost identical to ‘original intent.’ ‘original intent’ allows for wide judicial leeway.
swank my dear.
i prefer my blow-up dolls to be silent.
and i prefer not to be blown by other men. but here we are, far away from original intensions…
P.S. intension v. extension are very ANTI-CYNICAL
what do you have a personal theory of the forms and universals too?
girly man.
i pshaw at the idea that diogenes was a nominalist because…
diogenes belongs to no categories which his critics would put him in.
i gave the three marks of a Cynic. did you ignore them?
so trump is a Cynic by one mark.
ted k is a Cynic by all three.
try harder my negroes.
Apocalypse is coppola’s masterpiece.
The best university recruitment should have different classes of students :
1) pure IQ
2) 1) and consciousness
3) 2) and creativity
4) 3) and charisma measured by interview
5) 4) but measured only among legacies, rich and famous families.
In HYP and Ivies, the 0.1% in money (more than 1.8 million a year in revenue for one household) is 3%. But potentially it’s 4000 kids.
30 times higher than average. And top 1% (380k in revenue) is 15% or 15 times higher. But it’s 40 000 kids.
The top 0.01% (more than 10 M in revenue) is marginally represented but it’s 400 kids each year.
The group 5 gives value to all the others because they bring wealth and connections that go with it. If I were Harvard, I’ll try to recruit 100 out of 400 wealthier and 400 out of 4000 too one thousand and 1000 out of 40k. Non wealth selection would be restricted to a small group of 200 people with extraordinary individual traits …. No more than 10% of the total ….
Gates and Allen would have been in the group of top 1% households in income.
”1) pure IQ
2) 1) and consciousness
3) 2) and creativity
4) 3) and charisma measured by interview
5) 4) but measured only among legacies, rich and famous families.”
Buno,
you forget the most important of all in-combination:
E
M
P
A
T
H
Y
in FACT swank our discussion is hampered, hamstrung, impeded, etc. by peepee’s inability to understand the FIRST AMENDMENT.