On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:49:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/19/17 10:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:05:03 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/19/17 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:50:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Pfffft. You Christians treat the bible like a cafeteria...believe this,
pick that, ignore those...it's a handy document.

Sort of like how liberals read the constitution.



The Constitution can be interpreted, but how that is done is a matter of
law. That's nothing like interpreting the bible.

How so? Nine people in black robes decide what the words mean in a
huge leap of faith. You only have to look at the total reversals, like
Dred Scott or Schenck to see that.
That is not "a matter of law" as much as a sign of the times.
It is no more so than how people take passages of the bible and bend
them to their current beliefs.



Wow!

Never noticed that before?
It is yet to be seen which decisions might be overturned when Trump
gets to replace Ginsberg. (Bryer is getting pretty old too). If the
5-4s are a lock for "textualist" conservatives we may see lots of
things being revisited. There have been plenty of things read into the
constitution that are simply not there and things that have been
ignored that are there.



With a lot of luck, the Repubs will lose the House and maybe the Senate
next year. If the latter happens, Trump's ability to further **** on the
judiciary will be cut back, and he will not be able to name another
right-wing extremist to the Supremes.

It is funny that a conservative judge who actually wants to read the
constitution is a right wing extremist but a liberal judge who makes
up words that are not there is a normal jurist. Maybe that is normal
in your world. There is a process if you don't like what is written
there. Amend it. You are not supposed to just bend the meaning to suit
your politics.
In that regard isn't that exactly the way you say they are twisting
bible verse?

On 12/20/17 10:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:49:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/19/17 10:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:05:03 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/19/17 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:50:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Pfffft. You Christians treat the bible like a cafeteria...believe this,
pick that, ignore those...it's a handy document.

Sort of like how liberals read the constitution.



The Constitution can be interpreted, but how that is done is a matter of
law. That's nothing like interpreting the bible.

How so? Nine people in black robes decide what the words mean in a
huge leap of faith. You only have to look at the total reversals, like
Dred Scott or Schenck to see that.
That is not "a matter of law" as much as a sign of the times.
It is no more so than how people take passages of the bible and bend
them to their current beliefs.



Wow!

Never noticed that before?
It is yet to be seen which decisions might be overturned when Trump
gets to replace Ginsberg. (Bryer is getting pretty old too). If the
5-4s are a lock for "textualist" conservatives we may see lots of
things being revisited. There have been plenty of things read into the
constitution that are simply not there and things that have been
ignored that are there.



With a lot of luck, the Repubs will lose the House and maybe the Senate
next year. If the latter happens, Trump's ability to further **** on the
judiciary will be cut back, and he will not be able to name another
right-wing extremist to the Supremes.

It is funny that a conservative judge who actually wants to read the
constitution is a right wing extremist but a liberal judge who makes
up words that are not there is a normal jurist. Maybe that is normal
in your world. There is a process if you don't like what is written
there. Amend it. You are not supposed to just bend the meaning to suit
your politics.
In that regard isn't that exactly the way you say they are twisting
bible verse?



The Constitution has been re-interpreted since its first printing. If
your conservative jurists actually read the Constitution, the 2nd
Amendment "right" to bear arms would only pertain to those in
well-regulated militias.

The bible isn't endowed with the rule of law, anyway, despite
conservative attempts to make it so. It's nothing more than a book
compiled from disparate scrolls in the third and fourth centuries and
retranslated many times.

Keyser Soze wrote:
On 12/20/17 10:51 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 08:49:35 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/19/17 10:45 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 21:05:03 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 12/19/17 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 16:50:42 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

Pfffft. You Christians treat the bible like a cafeteria...believe this,
pick that, ignore those...it's a handy document.

Sort of like how liberals read the constitution.



The Constitution can be interpreted, but how that is done is a matter of
law. That's nothing like interpreting the bible.

How so? Nine people in black robes decide what the words mean in a
huge leap of faith. You only have to look at the total reversals, like
Dred Scott or Schenck to see that.
That is not "a matter of law" as much as a sign of the times.
It is no more so than how people take passages of the bible and bend
them to their current beliefs.



Wow!

Never noticed that before?
It is yet to be seen which decisions might be overturned when Trump
gets to replace Ginsberg. (Bryer is getting pretty old too). If the
5-4s are a lock for "textualist" conservatives we may see lots of
things being revisited. There have been plenty of things read into the
constitution that are simply not there and things that have been
ignored that are there.



With a lot of luck, the Repubs will lose the House and maybe the Senate
next year. If the latter happens, Trump's ability to further **** on the
judiciary will be cut back, and he will not be able to name another
right-wing extremist to the Supremes.

It is funny that a conservative judge who actually wants to read the
constitution is a right wing extremist but a liberal judge who makes
up words that are not there is a normal jurist. Maybe that is normal
in your world. There is a process if you don't like what is written
there. Amend it. You are not supposed to just bend the meaning to suit
your politics.
In that regard isn't that exactly the way you say they are twisting
bible verse?



The Constitution has been re-interpreted since its first printing. If
your conservative jurists actually read the Constitution, the 2nd
Amendment "right" to bear arms would only pertain to those in
well-regulated militias.

The bible isn't endowed with the rule of law, anyway, despite
conservative attempts to make it so. It's nothing more than a book
compiled from disparate scrolls in the third and fourth centuries and
retranslated many times.


Not if you include the Federalist Papers.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 11:10:37 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote:

It is funny that a conservative judge who actually wants to read the
constitution is a right wing extremist but a liberal judge who makes
up words that are not there is a normal jurist. Maybe that is normal
in your world. There is a process if you don't like what is written
there. Amend it. You are not supposed to just bend the meaning to suit
your politics.
In that regard isn't that exactly the way you say they are twisting
bible verse?



The Constitution has been re-interpreted since its first printing. If
your conservative jurists actually read the Constitution, the 2nd
Amendment "right" to bear arms would only pertain to those in
well-regulated militias.

The part that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" is not as hard to defend as you ignoring
"Congress shall make no law" in the 1st amendment.


The bible isn't endowed with the rule of law, anyway, despite
conservative attempts to make it so. It's nothing more than a book
compiled from disparate scrolls in the third and fourth centuries and
retranslated many times.

I agree the bible is a compilation of many other writings and there
are different versions for each brand of those faiths that use it.
The first real test of prayer in school (Weiss) was based on whether
people needed to hear the words in the King James version versus one
used by Catholics.