Sure are. Have a good night.
You too! Peace.
This is what I figured. How exactly is protecting against illegal searches and seizures as prescribed by the 4th amendment a “liberal ruling?”
Scalia was a great legal mind because he interpreted the Constitution to it’s original intent. This isn’t a conservative or liberal which is what the left fails to grasp. The Supreme Court was never intended to be a legislative arm that votes according to the beliefs of the individuals that happen to occupy it’s seats at the time.
Well, yes it is ideological, in the hands of originalist judges. Scalia’s originalism was not consistent - he gladly moved the goal posts to get to results he wanted on the 2A and 8A. In thw case of 2A, he abandoned originalism altogether. In the case of 8A (cruel and unusual punishments), he adopted a static, hidebound view of the word “unusual” in a way he wouldn’t for words like “reasonable” in search and seizure cases: where something like “reasonable” had to be read in the context of the changing times (with new technologies, etc.), “unusual” could not and he insisted we had to stick with thr 18th century understanding of what was “unusual”.
Originalism is not the ideology-free interpretation tool its supporters say it is. Originalists quite often use it cafeteria style, using it when it’s handy to get a result they want, and leaving it when it isn’t useful. As a result, they are often as “activist” as the “living constitutionalists” they criticize.
3 Likes
Can you go into more detail on this?
Scalia wrote that the 2A was written to protect an individual right to personal self-defense. Regardless of one’s views on whether there is an individual right or not in the 2A, in no universe was the original intent of the 2A to preserve the already existing, common law recognized right of personal self-defense against home invasion and common crime.
3 Likes
Gotcha
I think you confusing ‘human being’ with ‘person’. Human being is the lay term for the species ‘homo saipan’. When that which is utero becomes an autonomous from the mother’ genes and the father’s genes, then it’s a seperate human.
The word ‘people’ is the semantics folks get tangled on.
Nevertheless, notice how you provide a long, detailed explanation with tought and effort and Z responds to you with a 5 word sentence, every time?
He’s officially trolling you. I know because I have been there.
Lol welcome to 3 months ago.
Have you been missing the 80 post 1 sentence back and forth they regularly have?
I don’t monitor anybody as close as you two apparently monitor each other.
Monitoring? They do it in PWI threads we both comment on. Do you not read the actual threads?
Kinda hard to miss chunks of 40 1 liners back and forth
Did you also notice we don’t cry about it?
1 Like
Your definition of human being is only found in your personal dictionary.
Or, am I the one pulling the long troll? Months in the making, ready to spring shut on unsuspecting prey. Stay tuned. Muhaha. Muahhaha! Ahem.
1 Like
I read that in the voice of Butters from South Park.
1 Like
You clearly have more time on your hands than I do. T-nation is not my life.
And the scientific literature?
I’m not sure how the ability to follow 4-5 small threads at a time over the course of the time I’m here equates to making it my life, but I guess our standards for that phrase are just different.
Pleasure as always Pat, have a good weekend
1 Like
The definition you provided is not scientific. And the term human being predates genetic science.
Lol…somewhere a toilet with your claim is flushing.