kallend 2,148 #51 April 23, 2008 QuoteThat's not what I'm saying. What I am doing is spinning your words to make it sound like you are advocating something you aren't. Or, in the alternative, changing the understanding of what it is you wrote. But, there IS some comparison, john. The law what it says, right? The only thing a law is - words. That is all - words. And I worte about how your words could be interpreted NOT to violate the laws of nature but to show how you advocate ignoring the laws of nature. True, the laws of nature do not change. The words of the 8th Amendment haven't changed since they were put in there in 1791. And yet, you are essentially arguing that the words should be ignored. No, I'm arguing that the INTERPRETATION of words by a justice in 2008 is as valid as the INTERPRETATION of those words by a justice in 1808 or 1858 or 1908 or 1958.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #52 April 23, 2008 Precedent"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #53 April 23, 2008 QuotePrecedent You like going around in circles?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #54 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuotePrecedent You like going around in circles? Who is going around in circles? The point of precedent is to avoid going around in circles."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #55 April 23, 2008 QuoteI'm arguing that the INTERPRETATION of words by a justice in 2008 is as valid as the INTERPRETATION of those words by a justice in 1808 or 1858 or 1908 or 1958. I can see your point in that. What does that lead to, though? Chaos. Because law requires a steady application of the laws. Ignoring precedent leads to each judge deciding the issue on his or her own, with his or her own interpretation. You therefore have NO IDEA of the following: 1) Whether what you are doing is allowed under the law; and 2) If it is wrong, whether the judge nullify it. "Anarchy" - 1) Absence of any form of political authority; 2) Political disorder and confusion; 3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose The persistent reinterpretation of laws and the Constitution would be anarchy because: 1) There is no longer any authority; 2) there will confusion; and 3) there is no longer any cohesive standard. It's whatever anybody thinks at the time regardless fo what has been said. THAT is the reason why precedent ans stare decisis are so important. So that we, as a society, know what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #56 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteI'm arguing that the INTERPRETATION of words by a justice in 2008 is as valid as the INTERPRETATION of those words by a justice in 1808 or 1858 or 1908 or 1958. I can see your point in that. What does that lead to, though? Chaos. Because law requires a steady application of the laws. Ignoring precedent leads to each judge deciding the issue on his or her own, with his or her own interpretation. You therefore have NO IDEA of the following: 1) Whether what you are doing is allowed under the law; and 2) If it is wrong, whether the judge nullify it. "Anarchy" - 1) Absence of any form of political authority; 2) Political disorder and confusion; 3) Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose The persistent reinterpretation of laws and the Constitution would be anarchy because: 1) There is no longer any authority; 2) there will confusion; and 3) there is no longer any cohesive standard. It's whatever anybody thinks at the time regardless fo what has been said. THAT is the reason why precedent ans stare decisis are so important. So that we, as a society, know what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable. Aristotle was a smart guy, influential, authoritatitive, wrote the book. Newton found that Aristotle's interpretation of nature was not right. Newton was a smart guy. Influential and authoritative, wrote the book. Einstein found that Newton's interpretation of nature was not quite right. We didn't stick with Aristotle's version just because it had "precedent".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #57 April 23, 2008 QuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #58 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. I love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #59 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. I love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so. I love it how you have no problem changing interpretations of the Constitution, just because you don't agree with the interpretations."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. I love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so. What an odd statement. The point is that it's not SCOTUS's job to change the law. It's the legistlature's. If SCOTUS upholds the interpretation, then the interpretation is correct, and constitutional. Now, if the law is bad, or part of the constitution is now faulty, then that's not SCOTUS' job to change. Write your congressmen. This isn't a discussion about Capital punishment, it's a discussion about the process of law and why it shouldn't be circumvented by the personal bias of any judge at any level. You'd be thrilled if the SCOTUS concurred with a previous decision you agreed with. But even that's a moot point to the discussion. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #61 April 23, 2008 QuoteWe didn't stick with Aristotle's version just because it had "precedent". Correct. People created NEW versions. they did NOT interpret Aristotle differently. Aristotle was not "reinterpreted." Just proven wrong. It's been pretty well settled that Aristotle fathered the geocentric model of the universe. Then Copernicus came along. What did he do? Did he say, "I believe that Aristotle INTENDED to say that the earth revolved around the sun. Therefore, we will hold that Aristotle first advocated the position that the earth revolved around the sun." What happened was Copernicus said, "We know exactly what Aristotle said. And we know what the church is saying. I am saying that you are wrong." And then Galileo spoke up for him. Show some intellectual honesty and admit that the Constitution authorizes capital punishment. Once that happens, then we can discuss whether it is moral or whatever. So what I am proposing, kallend, is that when the 8th Amendment specifically speaks of "capital" crimes, it means "capital" crimes. It does not say, "There shall be no capital offense." You CANNOT in goo faith find that interpretations. This discussion can be ended when you simply state that you believe that the Constitution should be amended to ban capital punishment. Then we can look at that issue politically. And that IS A political question - not a judicial question. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #62 April 23, 2008 QuoteI love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so. No. The laws THEMSELVES in the Constitution may be wrong and harmful. The interpretations that CAUSE the effect of these laws to be wrong and harmful are correct. Change the wrong and harmful laws. Don't "reinterpret" them to mean something entirely new. that's called "legislating." And that's the job of the legislature. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #63 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. I love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so. I love it how you have no problem changing interpretations of the Constitution, just because you don't agree with the interpretations. No. He won't admit that the interpretations are correct. He doesn't like the laws themselves, so he wants them interpreted differently. I don't like the death penalty. However, the Constitution pretty plainly authorizes it, and nobody has thus found capital punishment as a concept to be unconstitutional. Kallend posits that the interpretation of the laws should be made to fit with concepts. Ironically, this is the "top to bottom" sort of legal reasoning that is so abhorred by the legal community and by the population. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #64 April 23, 2008 QuoteKallend posits that the interpretation of the laws should be made to fit with concepts. Ironically, this is the "top to bottom" sort of legal reasoning that is so abhorred by the legal community and by the population. naw - I think the Prof understands how it really works. To truly stand by that position would be extremely harmful in a societal sense and I'd not believe a guy that smart would 'really' follow that philosophy knowing the consequences of opening those floodgates. But he would just rather have a thread on Capital Punishment and this one was handy. Plus devil's advocate arguments where you are incorrect, but you only have to be persistent and ornery are a lot more fun. Else this thread would have died a few days ago. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #65 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. I love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so. Such as Roe vs Wade?"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #66 April 23, 2008 Kallend: What do you think of this article? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5146.html My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Butters 0 #67 April 23, 2008 Quote“Alito shouldn’t have been confirmed,” Schumer said. “I should have done a better job. My colleagues said we didn’t have the votes, but I think we should have twisted more arms and done more.” Reminds me of something a schoolyard bully would say ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #68 April 23, 2008 QuoteNewton was a smart guy. Influential and authoritative, wrote the book. Einstein found that Newton's interpretation of nature was not quite right. Umm … Einstein amended Newton's laws. He didn't change the interpretation. When Relativity theory is not taken into consideration due to the absence of the need for the precision it offers, Newton's laws are interpreted pretty much the same way he wrote them (although I have heard the first law restated, so as to reflect Newton's introduction to it, rather than a restatement, in less general form, of his second law, making the three laws more coherently stated and complete).Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #69 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. I love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so. Such as Roe vs Wade? Yes.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #70 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteNewton was a smart guy. Influential and authoritative, wrote the book. Einstein found that Newton's interpretation of nature was not quite right. Umm … Einstein amended Newton's laws. He didn't change the interpretation. When Relativity theory is not taken into consideration due to the absence of the need for the precision it offers, Newton's laws are interpreted pretty much the same way he wrote them (although I have heard the first law restated, so as to reflect Newton's introduction to it, rather than a restatement, in less general form, of his second law, making the three laws more coherently stated and complete). I think you MISREAD what I wrote. I was careful in my choice of words.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #71 April 23, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteMan made laws and laws of nature are not comparable. I love it how you folks have no problem sticking with interpretations of the Constitution that may well be wrong and harmful, just because some long dead judge said so. Such as Roe vs Wade? Yes. Yep"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #72 April 23, 2008 QuoteI think you MISREAD what I wrote. I was careful in my choice of words. Perhaps I wasn't clear with mine. Einstein didn't reinterpret Newton's Laws. He wrote his own. Likewise, it is not the courts place to reinterpret our laws. It is the job of the Legislature to rewrite them if there is need for change. I strongly believe that we need to change our laws to eliminate capital punishment, but not at the expense of reinterpreting the purpose of the judicial branch of the government.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #73 April 24, 2008 Quote I think you MISREAD what I wrote. I was careful in my choice of words. So were the authors of the constitution, and the judges over the last couple of hundred years that have interpreted thos words. According to you, there's nothing wrong with that. Gee. Sounds like you don't like your words being "interpreted." Consistency, professor. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #74 April 24, 2008 QuoteQuoteI think you MISREAD what I wrote. I was careful in my choice of words. Perhaps I wasn't clear with mine. Einstein didn't reinterpret Newton's Laws. I did NOT claim that he did. You STILL fail to read what I actually wrote. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #75 April 24, 2008 Quote I did NOT claim that he did. You STILL fail to read what I actually wrote. this seems to be your preferred cliche this week. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
this seems to be your preferred cliche this week.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites