TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43401: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:14:29 PM

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia does not believe that America has a living constitution.

“The constitution is not an organism. It’s a legal text,” Scalia told a few hundred campus and community members at a talk in Princeton University’s Richardson Auditorium this afternoon. “It means today what it meant when it was adopted.”

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43402: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:16:32 PM

The obvious rebuttal. "Then explain the ninth amendment."

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43403: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:17:57 PM

Deviant, when you post a news link, you shouldn't assume that we all agree with its message. We have a living constitution thread: we should talk about it there.

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#43404: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:18:11 PM

alternatively "why does it allow for amendments then?"

I'm baaaaaaack
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43405: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:19:25 PM

Part of me hopes he says amendments are unconstitutional.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43406: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:20:28 PM

[up][up][up]

you shouldn't assume that we all agree with its message.

I didn't....

I didn't say anything.

And Scalia is a US Politician, so I see no reason why I can't post it in a US Politics Thread.

edited 10th Dec '12 6:21:02 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#43407: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:20:41 PM

Oh, I hope so. we'd have a good case to remove him from office.

I'm baaaaaaack
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43408: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:21:13 PM

Well, what if I feel that the way you posted the link doesn't actually represent our opinions?

Please try to be unbiased with the links.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43409: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:21:41 PM

[up][up]

Can we remove Supreme Court Justices?

edited 10th Dec '12 6:21:52 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#43410: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:22:22 PM

[up] Pretty sure we can. let me check specifics.

Yes, yes we can.

edited 10th Dec '12 6:25:12 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43411: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:23:34 PM

Congress has to impeach. That's the only way.

And that opens a dangerous precedent of a can of worms. It was attempted back when Jefferson was president, for political reasons, and never again when it didn't work and he saw why it was a bad idea.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43412: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:23:57 PM

I'm guessing we can if they do something illegal. Stating an opinion isn't illegal but the resulting backlash (and trust me, there would be backlash) could be enough to convince him to step down.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43413: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:26:44 PM

Well, what if I feel that the way you posted the link doesn't actually represent our opinions?

Who's the 'our' in this sentence?

Look the article is titled: "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia rejects idea of 'Living Constitution' "

In the article Scalia is quoted as saying:

"“The constitution is not an organism. It’s a legal text. It means today what it meant when it was adopted.”

Proving that he doesn't believe the Constitution is a living document.

I don't get what you are complaining about.

edited 10th Dec '12 6:28:18 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#43414: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:26:58 PM

I think if a supreme court justice stated an opinion that is blatantly against one of our primary ideals AND the Constitution itself... well if nothing else it would demonstrate he's unfit for the position.

edited 10th Dec '12 6:27:07 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43415: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:28:46 PM

That's what I think. It's not grounds to remove him per se but I think I lot of people would be quietly asking for him to step down.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43416: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:29:12 PM

Not all of us really think living constitution idea is really that sound.

I personally don't think the meaning of the text should change just because times should change, unless the original intent of the specific provision was to have a fluid meaning.

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43417: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:30:54 PM

[up]

I didn't say the idea living constitution was sound or not. I personally have mixed feelings on the matter.

I just posted an article detailing Scalia's opinion on the matter.

edited 10th Dec '12 6:32:04 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#43418: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:32:02 PM

Eh, there's arguments about whether language is even meaningful. Wittgenstein comes to mind, I think? Anyway, the idea that the constitution says one thing and only one thing is pretty clearly bunk, as otherwise we wouldn't have a need for the Supreme Court.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43419: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:32:03 PM

[up][up]And yet people jumped at it. "Oh it's Scalia the justice we hate so everything he says must be wrong."

I don't like that kind of attitude. It's a pitfall that I see a lot on discussions/news that are generally on the same side as my views. I know it may not be your fault.

[up]The idea is that while we can misinterpret the true meaning of the text in the past and correct it later, that true meaning is nevertheless consistent. (That's where we get original intent or textualism.) But we can't simultaneously say "this was right back then, this is right for our times."

edited 10th Dec '12 6:34:16 PM by Trivialis

DeviantBraeburn Wandering Jew from Dysfunctional California Since: Aug, 2012
Wandering Jew
#43420: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:33:15 PM

[up]

And yet people jumped at it. "Oh it's Scalia the justice we hate so everything he says must be wrong."

That maybe.

But did any of my posts attack Scalia?

edited 10th Dec '12 6:33:54 PM by DeviantBraeburn

Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#43421: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:33:56 PM

[up][up]We did? Personally I don't care who's saying this (which one is Scalia anyway?). His words can be taken to mean that amendments are unconstitutional in which case it should be perfectly legal to deny minorities their rights or bar women from voting.

edited 10th Dec '12 6:34:28 PM by Kostya

DrunkGirlfriend from Castle Geekhaven Since: Jan, 2011
#43422: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:34:17 PM

Yeah, I think that the idea that the Constitution isn't living is pretty dumb. That's kind of the entire point of having amendments.

"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#43423: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:34:41 PM

The reason we hate him is because everything he says is wrong. Still, the "Scalia says there's not a living constitution" is like saying "Scientists determine water is wet."

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#43424: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:35:52 PM

@Kostya

Then I'm afraid you misinterpreted his comments. Rejecting the general idea of a living constitution is that the original text, and each amendment, must be held at face value. Whether it means original intent at the time of adoption for each amendment, or whether it means look at the text carefully, is the debate.

Declaring amendments unconstitutional is probably going to get him impeached, of course. But he doesn't think that. He had plenty of opinions explicitly dependent on constitutional amendments.

edited 10th Dec '12 6:37:00 PM by Trivialis

Fighteer Lost in Space from The Time Vortex (Time Abyss) Relationship Status: TV Tropes ruined my love life
Lost in Space
#43425: Dec 10th 2012 at 6:36:23 PM

Scalia is an old-school constructionist. Also an old-school reactionary. He has a vote on the Court but I'm awfully glad that justices retire eventually, and not just because of him.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Total posts: 417,856
Top