Stephen Colbert welcomes Justice Antonin Scalia

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, curryoday.

[SW189]

Heres an interesting takeaway, Justice Scalia thought Colbert was funny, whats that say about the rest of the conservative branch who can't take a joke

[charliebergy101239]

Mr. inJustice Scalie, together with his fellow inJustices: Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy have turned the U.S. Supreme Court into ONE BIG JOKE!

[Porojukaha]

@charliebergy101239 <---ignorant liberal. Please, educate yourself. Every Justice on the bench is a very good judge and an exceptional lawyer with a LOT of knowledge and expertise with the exception of the one Obama apointed. She has no previous experience as a judge, so regardless of her moral character, which im sure is wonderful, she is inexperienced. It would be like hiring a kid who won the high school science fair to work as the CEO of GOOGLE.

[Porojukaha]

@charliebergy101239 calling someone a joke because you disagree with them on an ideological level is a sure sign of ignorance and prejudice. You slander people because you have no way of winning them over with reason, because you dont even know how to defend your own misguided principles. All you know is that you like getting free money from the government, smoking as much weed as possible and getting as much pussy as you can. Thats hardly an educated political stance.

[RavingDissension]

@Porojukaha

Kagan is extremely qualified. She was not on any bench before, but as a Solicitor-General, she represented Congress before the SCOTUS. She has plenty of experience in the Court and more than enough intellect.

[Porojukaha]

@RavingDissension Im finding it hard to understand how you can say, in the same post "she has plenty of experience" and "she was not on any bench before" I dont care how many trials she has been a lawyer in or has seen. Being a lawyer your job is to get what you want, even if that means slipping past something unconstitutional because that is what your client PAYS you to do. as a judge your loyalties are not to anyone or any ideal but to the law. I dont think she understands that.

[RavingDissension]

@Porojukaha

Do you even know what a Solicitor-General is? Reconsider your remarks regarding lawyers as they don't apply to this position. Again, Kagan is a poor choice regarding the originalism of the Constitution. For that, you can say she would make an improper judge. But qualifications are not based on ideology; they're based on one's resume.

[Porojukaha]

@RavingDissension LOL!!! did you really just say that the solicitor general is not a lawyer?? Shes the lawyer that represents the Government in front of the Supreme Court. Definitly a lawyer. The only job of the supreme court is to uphold the constitution and by your own admission Kagan sucks at that.. Resumes are important only in that they show someones ability to do just that. Maybe you should go read the constitution a little...

[RavingDissension]

@Porojukaha

Yes, the SG is a lawyer. But not in the sense that you defined the term.

The Justice Department helps the President frame policy according to the constitutional parameters set by the judiciary. Furthermore, the SG is the chief adviser in this matter. Beyond its obvious job description, the SG is very much part of the legal process at the highest levels of government, making this addition to Kagan's already formidable resume even more qualifying.

[Porojukaha]

@RavingDissension Being a supreme justice means interpreting the constitution the way the Founding Fathers meant it to be interpreted. Not the way you wish it was because that would be oh so convenient for your personal bias. Thats my problem with her. If she were a judge for more time she would come to understand that. Ginsberg is a great example of that. Ideologically i disagree with her on everything. She is a great judge though notwithstanding. Cant say the same of Kagan.

[RavingDissension]

@Porojukaha

"Being a supreme justice means interpreting the constitution the way the Founding Fathers meant it to be interpreted. Not the way you wish it was because that would be oh so convenient for your personal bias."

But the Constitution does not state anywhere what standard with which to interpret it. Constitutionality of anything, therefore, is highly relative. I agree that an originalist approach is best, but that's just what it is- one approach out of many.

[Porojukaha]

@RavingDissension Constitutionality is not relative at all. People try to split hairs in order to get their agenda passed. And you are saying this because this is what you have been told by the media. But the constitution is very very clear on this matter. It is the final word. PERIOD! People say, but society is so much more complicated these days. Thats a load of BS. For all intents and purposes relevant to the principles on which the constitution was drafted society is exaclty the same.

[RavingDissension]

@Porojukaha

You're confusing constitutionality with its legal supremacy, the latter of which no one denies.

Cite me an article, section, and clause in the Constitution which states how the document itself is to be interpreted. That question is open for debate. I personally believe the original meaning of the document is what should hold sway. Others have their own doctrines; ergo, interpreting the constitution and by extension, the determination of constitutionality, is highly relative.

[MrWsad]

@RavingDissension and interpreting by original meaning is even more relative. some key figures who drafted the constitution disagreed about what it means... like they disagreed about whether it's constitutional to have central bank or not, etc. The founding fathers themselves disagreed so how is original meaning any less relative? please respond or you lose and die.

[RavingDissension]

@MrWsad

You're confusing original meaning with original intent.

Original meaning teaches that the Constitution, like any codified document, means what it meant when it was adopted. Original intent teaches the framers' intent of the wording supersedes anything else.

Seeing as the framers had divergent views, original intent is highly relative. Original meaning, however, is the most objective judicial test in American jurisprudence.

[RavingDissension]

@MrWsad

The key difference between meaning and intent is that meaning discounts what the framers personally felt about the Constitution. Original meaning states that the Constitution means what the framers agreed to AT THE TIME of the Constitutional Convention and the proceeding ratification period. A codified law cannot have two meanings.

Original intent, conversely, takes into account the framers personal opinions and ideologies even after the ratification, marring its purity with politics.

[Bladewing10]

Colbert has the biggest balls in the world.