Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. Common Good Constitutionalism

Common Good Constitutionalism

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
13 Posts 7 Posters 140 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • George KG Offline
    George KG Offline
    George K
    wrote on last edited by
    #3

    I saw a quotation of Scalia's the other day. I may have the exact words incorrect, but the point stands.

    "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

    MikM taiwan_girlT 2 Replies Last reply
    • JollyJ Jolly

      I'm still an originalist. Common Good is just monkeying around with the Constitution same as the Left loves to do, just with different goals.

      MikM Away
      MikM Away
      Mik
      wrote on last edited by
      #4

      @Jolly said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

      I'm still an originalist. Common Good is just monkeying around with the Constitution same as the Left loves to do, just with different goals.

      Bingo. Give that man a ceegar.

      “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

      1 Reply Last reply
      • George KG George K

        I saw a quotation of Scalia's the other day. I may have the exact words incorrect, but the point stands.

        "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

        MikM Away
        MikM Away
        Mik
        wrote on last edited by
        #5

        @George-K said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

        I saw a quotation of Scalia's the other day. I may have the exact words incorrect, but the point stands.

        "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

        Yup. Probably my favorite justice ever.

        “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

        jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
        • LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins DadL Offline
          LuFins Dad
          wrote on last edited by
          #6

          The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them.

          Full stop - No. How is this even up for debate amongst “conservatives”?

          The Brad

          Doctor PhibesD 1 Reply Last reply
          • LuFins DadL LuFins Dad

            The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them.

            Full stop - No. How is this even up for debate amongst “conservatives”?

            Doctor PhibesD Offline
            Doctor PhibesD Offline
            Doctor Phibes
            wrote on last edited by
            #7

            @LuFins-Dad said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

            The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them.

            Full stop - No. How is this even up for debate amongst “conservatives”?

            It sounds an awful lot like a bunch of guys who want to tell everybody else what’s good for them and they’ll put you in jail if you disagree.

            Hey - why not have a uniform while you’re at it?

            I was only joking

            MikM 1 Reply Last reply
            • MikM Mik

              @George-K said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

              I saw a quotation of Scalia's the other day. I may have the exact words incorrect, but the point stands.

              "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

              Yup. Probably my favorite justice ever.

              jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nycJ Offline
              jon-nyc
              wrote on last edited by
              #8

              @Mik said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

              @George-K said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

              I saw a quotation of Scalia's the other day. I may have the exact words incorrect, but the point stands.

              "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

              Yup. Probably my favorite justice ever.

              Harlan FTW.

              "You never know what worse luck your bad luck has saved you from."
              -Cormac McCarthy

              1 Reply Last reply
              • Doctor PhibesD Doctor Phibes

                @LuFins-Dad said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them.

                Full stop - No. How is this even up for debate amongst “conservatives”?

                It sounds an awful lot like a bunch of guys who want to tell everybody else what’s good for them and they’ll put you in jail if you disagree.

                Hey - why not have a uniform while you’re at it?

                MikM Away
                MikM Away
                Mik
                wrote on last edited by
                #9

                @Doctor-Phibes said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                @LuFins-Dad said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them.

                Full stop - No. How is this even up for debate amongst “conservatives”?

                It sounds an awful lot like a bunch of guys who want to tell everybody else what’s good for them and they’ll put you in jail if you disagree.

                Hey - why not have a uniform while you’re at it?

                Sounds an awful lot like the flip side of liberal activist judges, doesn't it?

                “I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill

                Doctor PhibesD 1 Reply Last reply
                • MikM Mik

                  @Doctor-Phibes said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                  @LuFins-Dad said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                  The cornerstone of Vermeule’s theory is the claim that “the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to ‘protect liberty’ as an end in itself” — or, in layman’s terms, that the Constitution empowers the government to pursue conservative political ends, even when those ends conflict with individual rights as most Americans understand them.

                  Full stop - No. How is this even up for debate amongst “conservatives”?

                  It sounds an awful lot like a bunch of guys who want to tell everybody else what’s good for them and they’ll put you in jail if you disagree.

                  Hey - why not have a uniform while you’re at it?

                  Sounds an awful lot like the flip side of liberal activist judges, doesn't it?

                  Doctor PhibesD Offline
                  Doctor PhibesD Offline
                  Doctor Phibes
                  wrote on last edited by Doctor Phibes
                  #10

                  @Mik said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                  Sounds an awful lot like the flip side of liberal activist judges, doesn't it?

                  It actually sounds more like the hard left mindset to me. Banning things we don't approve of and taking away personal freedoms in order to "protect society" isn't a good idea.

                  I was only joking

                  1 Reply Last reply
                  • George KG George K

                    I saw a quotation of Scalia's the other day. I may have the exact words incorrect, but the point stands.

                    "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

                    taiwan_girlT Online
                    taiwan_girlT Online
                    taiwan_girl
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #11

                    @George-K said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                    "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

                    But even among the most conservative judges, the US constitution is still interpreted differently, depending on the time in history who is looking at it.

                    JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
                    • taiwan_girlT taiwan_girl

                      @George-K said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                      "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

                      But even among the most conservative judges, the US constitution is still interpreted differently, depending on the time in history who is looking at it.

                      JollyJ Offline
                      JollyJ Offline
                      Jolly
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #12

                      @taiwan_girl said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                      @George-K said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                      "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

                      But even among the most conservative judges, the US constitution is still interpreted differently, depending on the time in history who is looking at it.

                      Define differently.

                      “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                      Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                      taiwan_girlT 1 Reply Last reply
                      • JollyJ Jolly

                        @taiwan_girl said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                        @George-K said in Common Good Constitutionalism:

                        "It's a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn't say what it doesn't say."

                        But even among the most conservative judges, the US constitution is still interpreted differently, depending on the time in history who is looking at it.

                        Define differently.

                        taiwan_girlT Online
                        taiwan_girlT Online
                        taiwan_girl
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #13

                        @Jolly

                        1896 Plessey vs Ferguson (7-1 saying separate but equal was okay)
                        1954 Brown vs Board of Education (9-0 saying separate but equal was not okay)

                        Basically the same argument. Separate but equal. Two opposite decisions.

                        1 Reply Last reply
                        Reply
                        • Reply as topic
                        Log in to reply
                        • Oldest to Newest
                        • Newest to Oldest
                        • Most Votes


                        • Login

                        • Don't have an account? Register

                        • Login or register to search.
                        • First post
                          Last post
                        0
                        • Categories
                        • Recent
                        • Tags
                        • Popular
                        • Users
                        • Groups