Re: Republicans Hate Freedom -- CONTEXT

[xxDogsoldierxx]

It should say Rep and Dems hate freedom.

[MIvarsson99]

I'm no conservative but Scalia is whooping her ass in this debate.

[xukeith33]

in 50 years or less, animals will have rights just like every US citizen. What a slippery slope.

[anikinippon]

I agree with Scalia, I agree with the originalist interpretation of the constitution, however, there are things that are vague on originalist interpretation and drawing the line is sometimes really difficult. Law is based on morality but law is not morality, I think that people think of law in a sense of an malleable philosophy and it wasn't really intended to be that except by legislative actions, not judicial.

[YourNameHere1212]

Yes, I am sure the people that passed the bill of rights and Constitution in order to affirmative pass our modern sense of morals. rofl.

[seahorse1945]

Damn Right Mr Scalia-  Couldn't have said it better if we had read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ourselves and Interpreted them both correctly ( and all you need folks is a 4th grade eduction to get it right). Nobody I ever met would argue a wheel should be any other shape than Round-- but this female is doing just that.

[brandnutopian]

Gotta love it when you see a prick like Scalia getting schooled on constitutional history. Way to go Nadine!!

[FAHayek89]

@brandnutopian Except that no one saw that.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

Unsanitary conditions with bugs, urine, feces, lack of showering units and starving prisoners is not cruel or unusual. It deincentovizes criminality. No more prisoners claiming they are too fat to execute. Forced manual labor or you get a beating. Why waste any money on criminals? Stay in your dark cells into working time.

[ToxicOdiousOne]

This female is a globalist pro queer progressive who believes in a living constitution, i.e. historical revisionism and judicial activism. Just like Obama and Eric Holder. Liberals should nit be on the judiciary.

[CNTloyalist]

that woman is such an idiot. how could she not realize that her whole final schpeal was making scalia's point. some people are just dumb.

[brandnutopian]

@CNTloyalist She's an idiot? Get your head out of your ass and watch the video again, cause you're obviously missing the point. If you still can't comprehend the arc of the conversation, just STFU.

It's spiel, moron, not schpeal.

[CNTloyalist]

@brandnutopian no I certainly get what she's saying and she's the idiot. She's the one who doesn't get it, just like you.

[CNTloyalist]

@brandnutopian no I certainly get what she's saying and she's the idiot. She's the one who doesn't get it, just like you.

[brandnutopian]

@CNTloyalist Of course you have more legal expertise than the President of the American Civil Liberties Union. Everyone knows that armchair activists with just a primary education are more informed than legal scholars who graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. Brilliant!

Now if you could just learn how to spell and post comments without doing it twice...

Cheers!

[socalcraigster]

Beautifull!

[crespogod09]

FUCK the ACLU. Stupid twats.

[brandnutopian]

@crespogod09  The ACLU supports the right for you to make an ass of yourself! Good going!

[crespogod09]

@brandnutopian The ACLU can suck my cock. Oh and you're also welcome to join in, bud!

[brandnutopian]

@crespogod09 That's a very generous offer, but no one can find your cock. Besides, you're boring darling... boring.

[crespogod09]

@brandnutopian fuck youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[brandnutopian]

@crespogod09 Such a clever little eunuch you are.

[crespogod09]

@brandnutopian Ouch! You really smoked me with that one. Go to an NRA meeting or something, it'll be good for you

[brandnutopian]

@crespogod09 NRA? It's you who has penis envy, not I.

[crespogod09]

@brandnutopian bagouch. just bagouch. s on my d

[brandnutopian]

@crespogod09 whatevs, cocksnot.

[DJBertz94]

if we tortured a terrorist to stop 9/11/01 attacks would it be bad

[FAHayek89]

Strossen's belief in progress is not warranted by history. Some of our more progressive periods have been those of the greatest restrictions on civil liberties (W. Wilson, FDR, etc.), and even today, we see some reversals. If the text means what we desire, a scared public in times of crisis will often desire security and tyranny over liberty.

[Kinbote123]

Brilliant, exactly. And the Constitution is structured so that the public can reclaim their liberty again once they no longer require as a nation the efficacy of tyranny.

[FAHayek89]

Really? The public required Roosevelt's mass internment of Japanese Americans, confiscation of private citizens' gold (personal property), and Wilson's control of the press to prohibit magazines and newspapers from writing articles critical of the administration? The reality is that Roosevelt and Wilson applied unnecessary arbitrary power and ran roughshod over the Constitution and "expanding liberty" in ways critiques of Bush and Obama could hardly imagine.

[Kinbote123]

@FAHayek89

My comment was not meant to evaluate the actual need of policies that creep upon rights, merely that the system provides for ways to roll such policies back once they become no longer tolerable -- as your comment proves. I don't think the Japanese are in interment camps any longer, nor is Wilson censoring magazines from the grave.

[FAHayek89]

@Kinbote123

"No longer tolerable?" You might have found an internment camp intolerable from day one. Who decides tolerability? The majority who does not have to tolerate abuses at all?

The founders had no great faith in the leglislator or people to progress. That is why they created a system of written law, checks and balance, and limitations on government.

[Kinbote123]

@FAHayek89

Umm right, cause everyone knows the Founders were a monolithic block who all thought the same. Adams wanted a strong Federal government, Jefferson didn't, for example.

Anyhow, I have no idea what you are objecting to. I've said what you said -- a system of checks and balances: which accommodates and rectifies mistakes.

If you're just bitching because mistakes are even made in the first place . . . well then piss off, this is the real world.

[FAHayek89]

@Kinbote123

The point is that our history is punctuated by turns both towards and away from liberty. History refutes Strossen's argument that our history is one of movement towards greater freedom, and even if it was, the exceptions would be serious and awful. Our only protection is respect for law as it is written, not for the moral judgment of nine lawyers. Nor is their role to make moral judgments, for which they are no more qualified than you or I, but to apply the text of law.

[Kinbote123]

@FAHayek89

This is the problem with YouTube arguments: look at my comments: you'll see that everything I said falls in with what you're saying. I don't disagree with one word of your statement.

I am in favor of judicial restraint -- I am not in favor of nine people whose words approach Constitutional amendments -- I prefer the more liquid legislature, where mistakes are more quickly rectified.

Society makes moral judgments (Congress), not elites (Judicial).

[brandnutopian]

@FAHayek89 Yes, I'm well aware of the suppression of dissent during WWI & WWII to which many Americans opposed involvement. Those wars were fought to strengthen American position in economic ways, not to defeat tyranny, but it sure looks good in theory. Bush and Obama didn't have to censor media dissent because major media is owned by those who stand to benefit most from war: corporations.

Still, this is all beside the point to the debate between Strossen & Scalia.

[bhaverstock]

When President Bush was in office, all we heard was fascist fascist. Look around now. The government has taken over the banking system, they are deep into the corporate scene, messing with their pay. They are in the car companies. They have not only kept warrantless wire tapping, but expanded it. Now there is a new bill where they want to institute massive regulations into the internet. Look up fascism, and see what you think.

[brandnutopian]

@FAHayek89 Strossen was saying the GENERAL ARC is for more freedom for more people. There's no disputing that and, miracle of miracles, even Scalia shut up at that point.

The American public does not desire tyranny. That's just plain twisted.

Does "Give me liberty or give me death!" sound familiar?

[FAHayek89]

1. "General arcs" mean nothing in interpretation of written law. To continue a trend, we adjust our law to propagate the trend. That does not change interpretation of current law.

2. Economic freedom is as vital as any other sort is. Do you control more of your income than you would have in 1776, 1860, or 1910?

[brandnutopian]

@FAHayek89 The means to acquire wealth and the infrastructure to support the endeavors of capitalism which are maintained by government have grown exponentially since 1776, 1860, or 1910. It's a fallacious argument anyway, as America has assured it's "economic freedom" through terror and subjugation of any foreign country deemed to have raw materials necessary to OUR "freedom".

[FAHayek89]

3. People may want long-term liberty. They often act on short term personal interests or passions. Law is the only protectorate against arbitrary power. It can only be so if it means what it says, not what opinions or interests of the day want it mean.

[brandnutopian]

@FAHayek89 Who is "they" to whom you refer? This comment is so whimsically vague as to be rendered meaningless.

[FAHayek89]

@brandnutopian

How about the Alien and Sedition act, or the people who elected Wilson and supported his flagrant violations of freedom of speech and assemble? How about the public that supported FDR's flagrant violation of the Constitution, or Richard Nixon and George Bush's expansion of the Presidency? The public support all of the above through their votes. Repeatedly in our history, the public has supported restrictions of freedom.

[Luckyplayer95]

Sodomizing someone is not cruel and unusual punishment?,cause that's what happen to a detainee in Guantanamo Bay.Wow! our new law is pretty sadistic.

[robislost]

What the hell are you talking about?  Whatever happened in Guatanamo Bay has nothing to do with the 8th amendment.

[Luckyplayer95]

Justice Scalia helped the Bush administration changed the law so the CIA can torture terror suspect without being prosecuted.

[robislost]

I'll try one more time, what does that have to do with the Eighth Amendment? Since when do people captured on a battlefield have Constitutional protections? Are you just going to keep making things up as you go?

[Luckyplayer95]

The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual

punishment moron.If terror suspect captured on the battlefield doesn't have Constitutional protection then why did the Bush Administration  in a hurry to change it??,cause they want to torture without repercussion.

[Luckyplayer95]

continue-People like you who support torture make me sick.Most of the detainees are innocent

cause a bunch of them were release after being tortured in Guantanamo bay.

[robislost]

You're an idiot. No where did I say I support torture. My question is what does that have to do with the Eighth Amendment and you've continued to blab on about nothing, making ridiculous and baseless accusations. And calling anyone in Guantanamo Bay as "innocent" is an idiotic assumption on your part.

[robislost]

The Eighth Amendment applies to U.S. citizens or anyone else in criminal custody, in the U.S. Not anyone captured in a war. Are you seriously going to argue they also have 4th amendment protections? How about 2nd amendment right to bear arms? The argument that they have Constitutional protections is an idiotic one. They have none. That isn't to say they deserve to be tortured, or protected by a treaty, but not the Constitution. To think so is ridiculous.

[Luckyplayer95]

You didn't answer my question,why were the Bush Administration in a hurry to change the 8th Amendment?,during Guantanamo Bay's controversy .Answer the question

[robislost]

LMAO!! How could they change the 8th amendment? You're talking about Albert Gonzalez' opinion regarding Bush's power at Commander in Chief, or maybe about their interpretation of "torture". Neither of which has a damn thing to do with the Eighth Amendment. I didn't know Congress was in secretly meeting to amend it...LOL

[Luckyplayer95]

yes they did.they change the law so they could torture ppl

[robislost]

changing the definition of torture or opining that the President as Commander-in-Chief has the authority to order torture doesn't come close to changing the Eighth Amendment. Only Congress can amend the Constitution, and they've only done it 27 times.

[Luckyplayer95]

maybe not the 8th Amendment but aren't the detainee protected by the Geneva Convention?,since they were captured on the battlefield.

[FAHayek89]

@Luckyplayer95 There you raise a different and possibly valid issue. The law here remains less well defined. The Geneva Convention also requires combatants to fight for a legitimate government, wear military uniforms, and a number of other criteria which many of those currently held did not meet.

[robislost]

btw, the title of this is just stupid and in no way does anything said by Nadine or Scalia support it. To argue originality precludes freedom is an incorrect understanding of originality.

[Luckyplayer95]

I don't know how the law works.I just like to argue lol so yea you're probably right.what I meant to say was their interpretation of torture

[Luckyplayer95]

I didn't say all of them were innocent.I said most of them are innocent.Why did the military release thousands of detainee from Guantanamo if they're not innocent??,answer this question

[FAHayek89]

@Luckyplayer95

Punishment, in legal terms, is an action applied after due process and conviction of a crime.  Torture before such process is abhorent, but it is not technically puishment, so the 8th Amend. does not apply.

[Luckyplayer95]

evolving into torturing people?

[ratzskinakie]

She is stupid

[redhawk8]

the ACLU seems to care about all amendments but the second... the work they do on the others is all good but they are hypocritical in that way.

[junkmail987]

This woman COMPLETELY missed Scalia's point about the dangers of granting the power to make up new laws to a few life tenured, non-elected judges.

This non-representational power is EXACTLY what the framers of our constitution tried to prevent.

So far liberal judges have twisted laws to fit her personal beliefs.

She needs to see one changed in a way she doesn't agree with to understand the insane danger of this. The only way to undo it is to wait for some of the judges to die.

[solive4]

Scalia is the man! woooo!

[tttocstttocs]

People inevitably bitch about Scalia but they are simply not able to beat him in a debate on the merits of his arguments. I think he is a great Justice.

[raydawg325]

Scalia is scum---whack job!

[burrellhill]

The title is absurd, Justice Scalia cleaned that broads clock!!

[sfudman]

Its obviusly open to interpertation. It is the purpose of the court, to interpret!

[Ehal256]

the power of the supreme court, to interpret the constitution, is not in the constitution.

[Ehal256]

and therefore, is against the constitution

[sfudman]

I would argue that the constitution is open to interpretation: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and..." -article III, US constitution.

Who decides what "Judicial Power" is?

By the way, what year did you graduate Law school??

[Ehal256]

i didn't go to graduate school, but how about this, originally the supreme court didn't have the power to change the constitution or interpret it, the first justice to do that was John Marshall, and it was just a grab for power, directly against the constitution.

[sfudman]

Marbury Vs Madison, in my humble opinion, filled a power vacuum. We must remember, the continent was still being explored, the natives were still being expunged from history.

If the residents of new country, in the new world were going to succeed, they needed to know that thier government was a legitimate source of justice.

Un-constitutionality reminds us that the government is legit.

[Ehal256]

im too tired to think enough to make a response lol sorry...

[Ehal256]

oops, i meant law school not graduate school, i dont know how that got into there haha. :D

[jlharter]

I know what is right and wrong, I know what is ethical. If the constitution causes something unethical, such as torture, then the constitution needs to be changed. Republicans SUCK!

[burrellhill]

Justice Scalia handed that moron her lunch!

[jjs1776]

That lady couldn't tie Scalia's shoes

[youtookmyshrooms]

im sorry i must have missed it (watched it 5 times over) but how does this prove the title?

[bamatommy]

What program is this from?

[antiNAU]

An evolving constitution? Hmmm...

[jerinboron]

Man, I love scalia.  how can anyone argue against him?