wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 16:24:04 -0500, Marty wrote:

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:30:23 -0500, Marty said:

Has the Supreme Court amended the Constitution? If so what are the
Amendment numbers please?

You can identify some of them pretty easily. Just do a search for the
words
"privacy," "penumbra," "first trimester," "sodomy" and "one man one
vote."

What's that you say? You can't find those words? Well, I'll be damned!


Your are a bit of on odd duck Dave. I can remember asking you just what
you thought the meaning of the Second Amendment was and you expressed
the sentiment that you had no opinion because the Supreme Court had not
rendered an opinion,,

Now it appears that when the Court renders an opinion that you disagree
with, you accuse them of being mentally incompetent.

You do agree that Constitution and later history imbues the Court with
the power to interpret the Constitution, and if they interpret in a way
that fits with your rather right of center views that's fine. If they
interpret otherwise you accuse them of "amending".

Cheers
Martin

Similar to the use of the phrase "Activist Judges", who are judges
that rule against your position.



Like the court that decided the 2000 election for us. They weren't
activist... nope, no way!


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:49:44 -0800, "Capt. JG" said:

"This Court...does not serve its high purpose when it exceeds its
authority, even to satisfy justified impatience with the slow workings
of the political process. For when, in the name of constitutional
interpretation, the Court adds something to the Constitution that was
deliberately excluded from it, the Court, in reality, substitutes its
view of what should be so for the amending process."

Harlan's dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims

Ah, so it's an opinion. Did that amend the Constitution also? LOL

Seems to me the last clause in the quoted language (that's the part after
the penultimate comma, for the grammatically challenged) describes rather
nicely what the majority opinion in the case did.


For some totally unfathomable, no doubt insane reason, decisions of the
Supreme Court are not based on a sole dissenting opinion. Who'da thunk it.

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:49:44 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

"This Court...does not serve its high purpose when it exceeds its
authority, even to satisfy justified impatience with the slow workings
of the political process. For when, in the name of constitutional
interpretation, the Court adds something to the Constitution that was
deliberately excluded from it, the Court, in reality, substitutes its
view of what should be so for the amending process."

Harlan's dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Sims


Ah, so it's an opinion. Did that amend the Constitution also? LOL

Seems to me the last clause in the quoted language (that's the part after
the penultimate comma, for the grammatically challenged) describes rather
nicely what the majority opinion in the case did.


"The majority opinion" QED

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 14:51:27 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Like the court that decided the 2000 election for us. They weren't
activist... nope, no way!

Bush v. Gore is a classic example of the kind of political question the
Court should never have accepted for review. (Most probably the Florida
courts should have declined jurisdiction for similar reasons, but that's
another issue.) Much like the reapportionment cases in that regard.
Unfortunately, the political question doctrine was substantially abolished
by the Warren court long before the 2000 election. So you can thank the
Warren court for that decision, Jon.


Actually, I can thank a bunch of egotistical jerks, who voted to stop the
election.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:29:15 -0500, Marty wrote:


The bit about "no rational person" rather implies mental incompetency
does it not?


To a rational person, yes.

Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:29:15 -0500, Marty said:

That would be: "When the Court "discovers" new rights which no rational
person could believe were in the minds of those ratifying the
Constitution or applicable amendments, they have changed the document
without following the procedure called for to change it"

The bit about "no rational person" rather implies mental incompetency
does it not?

Nope. It implies rejection of the intent of those ratifying the Constitution
or the amendment as the standard for interpreting the document. Far from
suggesting incompetence, it suggests a willful but entirely competent desire
to claim constitutional sanction for what amounts to no more than their own
policy judgments.


Ah, "intent", always boils down to that doesn't it? Personally, I,
perhaps stupidly, believe in the moral integrity of the men and women
who make it to the bench of the Supreme Court. If they make a decision
that I don't agree with, I am sure they are making it out of a sincere
belief in its' legality, and not because they have some nefarious intent
to rewrite the Constitution. I feel the Founding Fathers set the system
up the way they did precisely because they knew that times would change,
society would evolve and events would occur which they had no way to
foresee, hence the need for a body with the power to in effect, "guess"
what they might have done.

Hopefully they will do it in a wise and just way, and further leave any
really large changes to Constitutionally defined amendment process.

I still say, if you are going to suggest, that the Supreme Court renders
decisions based on intent that no rational person could see, most
certainly implies that those rendering the decision are in fact
irrational and thus not mentally competent.

Cheers
Martin

"Marty" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 17:29:15 -0500, Marty said:

That would be: "When the Court "discovers" new rights which no rational
person could believe were in the minds of those ratifying the
Constitution or applicable amendments, they have changed the document
without following the procedure called for to change it"

The bit about "no rational person" rather implies mental incompetency
does it not?

Nope. It implies rejection of the intent of those ratifying the
Constitution
or the amendment as the standard for interpreting the document. Far from
suggesting incompetence, it suggests a willful but entirely competent
desire
to claim constitutional sanction for what amounts to no more than their
own
policy judgments.


Ah, "intent", always boils down to that doesn't it? Personally, I,
perhaps stupidly, believe in the moral integrity of the men and women who
make it to the bench of the Supreme Court. If they make a decision that I
don't agree with, I am sure they are making it out of a sincere belief in
its' legality, and not because they have some nefarious intent to rewrite
the Constitution. I feel the Founding Fathers set the system up the way
they did precisely because they knew that times would change, society
would evolve and events would occur which they had no way to foresee,
hence the need for a body with the power to in effect, "guess" what they
might have done.

Hopefully they will do it in a wise and just way, and further leave any
really large changes to Constitutionally defined amendment process.

I still say, if you are going to suggest, that the Supreme Court renders
decisions based on intent that no rational person could see, most
certainly implies that those rendering the decision are in fact irrational
and thus not mentally competent.

Cheers
Martin


I wish that were true. Unfortunately, Thomas never got over his "high tech
lynching," admitting as much in recent interviews. He's got an agenda for
sure. Recent example was the Obama citizenship thing. The rest of the court
declined to hear it and the guy who was promoting it, shopped the justices
until he found Thomas.

I don't agree with Scalia, but I respect his intellect. Same for the others.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Bob wrote:

On Dec 8, 1:26 pm, Justin C wrote:

In article , Ansley W. Sawyer wrote:

This sounds like it could be solved with a teenager and twenty bucks.

On a no-win, no-fee basis, of course.

Justin.


I belive the correct phrase is: NO CURE NO PAY. A damn good business
plan.
Bob


Ok, so who was the bozo that dropped the Constitution overboard???

Dave wrote:

I hope you can see that that's a non-sequitur.


Moot

Cheers
Martin

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:38:04 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

Actually, I can thank a bunch of egotistical jerks, who voted to stop the
election.

So we agree that the Court shouldn't have taken the case. You because you
think the justices are a bunch of egotistical jerks, and I because I don't
think the issue was one appropriate for judicial determination.


Say it ain't so! Actually, I agree that they shouldn't have taken the case,
because it wasn't appropriate *and* because they're egotistical jerks. I
really like Scalia's remarks about it... "get over it."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com