Stephen Colbert welcomes Justice Antonin Scalia

From the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner

Category:

Comedy

Tags:

• colbert
• scalia

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, curryoday.

[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.

[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.

[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]

@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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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