Amen. There's nobody left on the Supreme Court that agrees with that statement. The Constitution is no longer a limiting document on government. Instead of requiring that it be amended by the People thru due process, they now rewrite it themselves and trample on Liberty. Fundamental Transformation is getting locked in. Lawlessness creates risk aversion.
He thought that federal anti-drug laws should trump state efforts to legalize marijuana.
That women did not have the right to abortion, and that criminalizing homosexuality was okay.
The founding fathers loathed, detested and reviled standing militaries, and placed primary responsibility for the nation's defense into citizens militias.
The present-day professional, permanently mobilized, and spying military would be an abomination to the framers of the US Constitution.
I did like Scalia's generally pro-business attitude.
And while I thought Al Gore was perhaps most boring man ever to walk the face of the earth, Scalia's participation in the kangaroo court that handed the 2000 election to Bush was smellier than rotten mackeral.
And for all of that, Scalia may be one of the better recent Supremes. Kagan and Sotomeyer strike me as lightweights. Thomas? Egads, I wouldn't trust him to run a traffic court.
One thing for sure, his death has handed the GOP/Tea Party etc etc a poison chalice. If the GOP decides not to replace Scalia before November the 4/4 split with more than 40 more verdicts still to come (and there is no way that posthumous votes by Scalia will stand) will hand the White House many many victories. Moreover, if Obama is a good operator he can suggest someone that would meet of the GOP's objections...
As for the American constitution... well we now count every man and women as a whole person, so lets not get too carried away with the writers' original intent. The elegance of the American Constitution and its associated bills of rights is that they are living documents. BTW Scalia would be seriously pissed to think that Obama's White House doesn't have a right to govern. Last I saw, the President's term in office was 4 years, not 3 years 5 months and 2 days...
At the end of the day the GOP & friends will have to choose what is best (for them -- and maybe the country too) My guess is that they will screw up; and get the worse of both word; 4/4 split in SCOTUS and a slow confirmation process that will eventually lead to Obama's candidate being nominated.
BTW the math for a GOP White House would become impossible if for example Obama nominated a Mexican American state supreme court justice to the highest court (forget Florida)
Frozen - Very prudent observation on the dilemma facing Republicans. Obama just needs to nominate somebody like Mariano-Florentino Cuellar from the California Supreme Court to really throw a curve ball into the whole process. Would frame the entire process around not nominating a Mexican American with a degree from Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. Makes for some troublesome debate quotations about why he should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Scalia will be missed, and we can only hope someone with similar principles will fill his seat.
The Senate is not constitutionally bound to vote on a president's nominee for the Supreme Court. As Paul Mirengoff notes, "Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote."
Claiming the Constitution to be a "living document", is oxymoronic. The whole idea of having an amendable Constitution is so that each subsequent generation doesn't reinterpret it for their own benefit.
The key is the 9th Amendment, which has been relegated to the dustbin.
Didn't say it was easy -- just that its possible after all there are 27 amendments.
BTW Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall is the one who coined the expression.. as Montoya said: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Scott- I would enjoy reading your thoughts on capital controls RE: hard currency. For example; limiting the usage/circulation of higher denominated bills, restrictions on withdrawals/deposits of hard currency, and restrictions on spending hard currency. Seems like capital controls on hard currency will be a leading indicator of NIRP imposed on individual citizens, not banks.
Larry Summers and a Harvard Kennedy School paper thinks it's time to kill the $100 bill, €500 note, CHF1,000 note, and £50 note. It will stop tax evasion, human smuggling, theft, fraud, and corruption....NIRP headed our way?
See http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/awp52
As a Lubertarian I strongly object to government efforts to restrict ones ability to transact freely. If tax evasion is a problem the solution is not more capital controls but rather lower tax burdens. That goes for corporate inversions as well. Capital seeks out places where it is treated well. Capital controls are counter productive.
Let me expand on the subject of negative interest rates and capital controls designed to limit a currency's use in illicit transactions. Both of these policies are designed to destroy the demand for a currency. As such, I don't see how that becomes a positive for growth. It may result in a faster velocity of circulation of money, but that doesn't necessarily cause growth. More likely, it just pushes up inflation.
It is disconcerting, therefore, that we are hearing more and more central bankers and monetary policy "experts" discussing the benefits of capital controls and negative interest rates. This is misguided policy speaking. I would hope the Fed refrains from joining the parade. For now they should just stand pat.
Do elections matter? If so, the Constitution, that so called conservatives claim to love, states that presidents have 4 year terms. The current twice elected president has a year to go. So if you believe in the Constitution, his nominations should be confirmed or rejected based on the merits, not blocked based on crass aconstitutional politics.
Lawyer in NJ. It always tickles me when liberals want things done according to the law and protocol and, thank goodness, the Constitution, but have no problem sidestepping those pesky rules when it benefits them. The GOP, if you can even call the current leadership that, should do everything they can to keep Obama's appointee from taking the bench, just as the Democrats would if the situation were reversed.
The path to sustainable prosperity lies in reasonable regulations, low taxes, and a respect for the free market place. If Democrats could compromise reasonably on those issues we could start clawing our way back to prosperity. Instead, and much of the blame goes to a feckless GOP leadership, we continue to overregulate, do nothing about taxes except increase them, and denounce capitalism as some evil form of economics.
Compromising with destructive people and policies is just plain stupid. Our most prosperous times in history are when unConstitutional Liberal policies were defeated...not compromised with. Early 1920s, 1950s, Reagan Era, and the Pub control of Congress from 1994 landslide election until 2007. Gingrich defeated Clinton's agenda. He did not compromise with it. Clinton abandoned his agenda, and America won. When Lib policies of "Tax, Spend, and Regulate" prevail, prosperity suffers.
Barack lost the Congress just like Clinton did, but Barack has dug in His heels fighting the People and has given us the worst economic recovery in US history. While losing the Congress, Barack is the first President in US history to ever get a second term with less votes than He got in His first term. Tone deaf and ineffective. Zero powers of persuasion. All coercion and proclamations and Executive Orders. Piss poor leadership from start to finish. Enough. We need some Hope and Change.
JBD, so who's your "hope and change" candidate? Please don't say DT. Anti-immigration and anti-free trade are NOT GOP principles and will do nothing but decrease prosperity.
None of the people running are very good, imo. Not sure why you would care about my opinion on a political candidate, but here you go.
I like Trump pretty well, despite his flaws. I used to absolutely hate the guy, but have warmed up to him the more I have listened to him. I was a major critic, but Trump pisses off all the right people, and Im ready for quite a bit of that, especially after that Omnibus Bill in December. PUBs no longer fight back against bad policy...they vote for it. That final straw blew my mind, and I gave up on the PUB leadership for good. I see Trump as the crowbar to pry inside the Party and bust up their game. "A little revolution now and again."
Trump isn't anti immigration. He's pro immigration, but by purposeful policy. He is against ILLEGAL immigration. You knew that, right? Tell me you knew that, but just misspoke. He loves cheap foreign labor, and employs thousands of those folks. But he wants them to go thru the process, and wants to keep out terrorists instead of letting them in. Im for that. Its my number one issue. I can't imagine why that is controversial. America needs to wake up. Trump wants them to labor HERE, rather than elsewhere. The claims about racism and bigotry and hate speech are total bullshit.
Trump is dead wrong on his trade war rhetoric, but there is no way Congress is going to vote for harmful tariffs like they did in the Great Depression. He will use it for negotiation just like Reagan used military power during his term....to the same complaints from critics. China needs us worse than we need them, but they will respect him a whole lot more than the guy in there now. The TPP is a horrible surrender of US sovereignty, and needs to fail for that reason. He gets that part. The secret nature of its entire formation process is nauseating. Im 100% behind Jeff Sessions on that. We are a joke to foreign nations right now, and Id like to stop world government instead of enable it. I like that Trump has an America First attitude. Its about time for that to return to our policy, imo. We have lost the respect of the world. I like the way Trump wants to make America win financially in every single negotiation with other nations. Its about time. Im tired of losing. I want to win.
ObamaCare needs to be repealed. Trump's plan of replacing it with personal health savings accounts with a safety net for the abject poor is a decent step towards market competition. Nobody else is promoting a better plan. The government takeover of healthcare is the worst affront to Liberty in my lifetime. It will be almost impossible to unravel that beast of a law. UnConstitutional, no matter what Roberts contrives.
Maybe Trump is lying to me, and has me snookered. But I KNOW FOR A FACT that the others are liars, because I watched which bills they supported....until they didn't support them anymore. I don't want another Senator for Prez. Trump knows how to run things. I can tell you that Hillary or Bernie would be the biggest disaster for the nation, and Im convinced that there isn't a PUB running that will pull in DEM voters, except for Trump. He may have the most bluster, but he is the most pragmatic and generates excitement. Kasich is fine, but has the appeal of a wet rag. This is politics. So at this point, you either vote for Trump, or you get the DEM. Nobody generates excitement but him. Maybe somebody else will step up. Will be interested to see his advisory team he is announcing next week.
Johnny, very well said. Pretty much my feelings also, but still having a hard time warming up to Trump. I want a Constitutionalist and fear Trump will have little regard for it if he is elected. So we elect someone who disregards the Constitution, but rationalize that it is more or less ok because he will get things done that we want done?
Well, I know FOR A FACT that Cruz, Rubio, Bush will have little regard for the Constitution, based on their past votes and actions behind the scenes. I don't think any of them are trustworthy, and I actually believe that Trump is. I like the stuff Trump has said about what he is allowed to do as President, vs what he is NOT allowed to do.
Like I said...Trump may have me fooled, but I KNOW the other guys are not straight shooters. And I am sick up to my neck of listening to Jeb Bush bash conservatives for the last several years...just like his father used to do. No thanks. I want a crowbar to break up that Party leadership.
Amen.
ReplyDeleteThere's nobody left on the Supreme Court that agrees with that statement.
The Constitution is no longer a limiting document on government. Instead of requiring that it be amended by the People thru due process, they now rewrite it themselves and trample on Liberty.
Fundamental Transformation is getting locked in.
Lawlessness creates risk aversion.
Scalia?
ReplyDeleteHe thought that federal anti-drug laws should trump state efforts to legalize marijuana.
That women did not have the right to abortion, and that criminalizing homosexuality was okay.
The founding fathers loathed, detested and reviled standing militaries, and placed primary responsibility for the nation's defense into citizens militias.
The present-day professional, permanently mobilized, and spying military would be an abomination to the framers of the US Constitution.
I did like Scalia's generally pro-business attitude.
And while I thought Al Gore was perhaps most boring man ever to walk the face of the earth, Scalia's participation in the kangaroo court that handed the 2000 election to Bush was smellier than rotten mackeral.
And for all of that, Scalia may be one of the better recent Supremes. Kagan and Sotomeyer strike me as lightweights. Thomas? Egads, I wouldn't trust him to run a traffic court.
The constitution is a living document, often vague and subject to interpretation. Strict adherence would require abolishing the AirForce.
ReplyDeleteOne thing for sure, his death has handed the GOP/Tea Party etc etc a poison chalice. If the GOP decides not to replace Scalia before November the 4/4 split with more than 40 more verdicts still to come (and there is no way that posthumous votes by Scalia will stand) will hand the White House many many victories. Moreover, if Obama is a good operator he can suggest someone that would meet of the GOP's objections...
ReplyDeleteAs for the American constitution... well we now count every man and women as a whole person, so lets not get too carried away with the writers' original intent. The elegance of the American Constitution and its associated bills of rights is that they are living documents. BTW Scalia would be seriously pissed to think that Obama's White House doesn't have a right to govern. Last I saw, the President's term in office was 4 years, not 3 years 5 months and 2 days...
At the end of the day the GOP & friends will have to choose what is best (for them -- and maybe the country too) My guess is that they will screw up; and get the worse of both word; 4/4 split in SCOTUS and a slow confirmation process that will eventually lead to Obama's candidate being nominated.
BTW the math for a GOP White House would become impossible if for example Obama nominated a Mexican American state supreme court justice to the highest court (forget Florida)
Frozen - Very prudent observation on the dilemma facing Republicans. Obama just needs to nominate somebody like Mariano-Florentino Cuellar from the California Supreme Court to really throw a curve ball into the whole process. Would frame the entire process around not nominating a Mexican American with a degree from Harvard, Yale, and Stanford. Makes for some troublesome debate quotations about why he should not be a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Scalia will be missed, and we can only hope someone with similar principles will fill his seat.
ReplyDeleteRIP Justice Scalia
The Senate is not constitutionally bound to vote on a president's nominee for the Supreme Court. As Paul Mirengoff notes, "Presidents have made 160 nominations for the Supreme Court. The Senate confirmed only 124 of them. And of the 36 failed nominations, the vast majority of them (25) received no up-or-down vote."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/02/republicans-have-no-constitutional-duty-to-vote-on-supreme-court-nominees.php
Read the whole thing for more history on Senate efforts to block nominees, the most recent being led by Chuck Shumer in 2007, joined by Senator Obama.
Claiming the Constitution to be a "living document", is oxymoronic. The whole idea of having an amendable Constitution is so that each subsequent generation doesn't reinterpret it for their own benefit.
ReplyDeleteThe key is the 9th Amendment, which has been relegated to the dustbin.
2016 is shaping up to be a seminal year.
Perhaps the most stalwart Conservative on the Uber Court.
ReplyDeleteSome of his "decisions" raised eyebrows, nevertheless he did
add hear to one of the most important compacts created by man.
Unfortunately, the Uber Court now seeks to make law rather than do
it's duties and interpret the US Constitutions.
BTW, 10% of all college graduates think the Judge Judy sits on the
Supreme Court.
Bob:
ReplyDeleteDidn't say it was easy -- just that its possible after all there are 27 amendments.
BTW Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall is the one who coined the expression.. as Montoya said: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means"
Scott- I would enjoy reading your thoughts on capital controls RE: hard currency. For example; limiting the usage/circulation of higher denominated bills, restrictions on withdrawals/deposits of hard currency, and restrictions on spending hard currency. Seems like capital controls on hard currency will be a leading indicator of NIRP imposed on individual citizens, not banks.
ReplyDeleteLarry Summers and a Harvard Kennedy School paper thinks it's time to kill the $100 bill, €500 note, CHF1,000 note, and £50 note. It will stop tax evasion, human smuggling, theft, fraud, and corruption....NIRP headed our way?
See http://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/mrcbg/publications/awp/awp52
As a Lubertarian I strongly object to government efforts to restrict ones ability to transact freely. If tax evasion is a problem the solution is not more capital controls but rather lower tax burdens. That goes for corporate inversions as well. Capital seeks out places where it is treated well. Capital controls are counter productive.
ReplyDeleteLet me expand on the subject of negative interest rates and capital controls designed to limit a currency's use in illicit transactions. Both of these policies are designed to destroy the demand for a currency. As such, I don't see how that becomes a positive for growth. It may result in a faster velocity of circulation of money, but that doesn't necessarily cause growth. More likely, it just pushes up inflation.
ReplyDeleteIt is disconcerting, therefore, that we are hearing more and more central bankers and monetary policy "experts" discussing the benefits of capital controls and negative interest rates. This is misguided policy speaking. I would hope the Fed refrains from joining the parade. For now they should just stand pat.
Do elections matter? If so, the Constitution, that so called conservatives claim to love, states that presidents have 4 year terms. The current twice elected president has a year to go. So if you believe in the Constitution, his nominations should be confirmed or rejected based on the merits, not blocked based on crass aconstitutional politics.
ReplyDeleteJust for some perspective, I wouldn't vote for Sanders no matter who is opposing him. He is what Republicans pretend that Obama is, but clearly isn't.
ReplyDeleteI will also add that the path to sustainable prosperity is reasonable compromise.
ReplyDeleteLawyer in NJ. It always tickles me when liberals want things done according to the law and protocol and, thank goodness, the Constitution, but have no problem sidestepping those pesky rules when it benefits them. The GOP, if you can even call the current leadership that, should do everything they can to keep Obama's appointee from taking the bench, just as the Democrats would if the situation were reversed.
ReplyDeleteThe path to sustainable prosperity lies in reasonable regulations, low taxes, and a respect for the free market place. If Democrats could compromise reasonably on those issues we could start clawing our way back to prosperity. Instead, and much of the blame goes to a feckless GOP leadership, we continue to overregulate, do nothing about taxes except increase them, and denounce capitalism as some evil form of economics.
Compromising with destructive people and policies is just plain stupid. Our most prosperous times in history are when unConstitutional Liberal policies were defeated...not compromised with. Early 1920s, 1950s, Reagan Era, and the Pub control of Congress from 1994 landslide election until 2007. Gingrich defeated Clinton's agenda. He did not compromise with it. Clinton abandoned his agenda, and America won. When Lib policies of "Tax, Spend, and Regulate" prevail, prosperity suffers.
ReplyDeleteBarack lost the Congress just like Clinton did, but Barack has dug in His heels fighting the People and has given us the worst economic recovery in US history. While losing the Congress, Barack is the first President in US history to ever get a second term with less votes than He got in His first term. Tone deaf and ineffective. Zero powers of persuasion. All coercion and proclamations and Executive Orders. Piss poor leadership from start to finish. Enough. We need some Hope and Change.
JBD, so who's your "hope and change" candidate? Please don't say DT. Anti-immigration and anti-free trade are NOT GOP principles and will do nothing but decrease prosperity.
ReplyDeleteNone of the people running are very good, imo. Not sure why you would care about my opinion on a political candidate, but here you go.
ReplyDeleteI like Trump pretty well, despite his flaws. I used to absolutely hate the guy, but have warmed up to him the more I have listened to him. I was a major critic, but Trump pisses off all the right people, and Im ready for quite a bit of that, especially after that Omnibus Bill in December. PUBs no longer fight back against bad policy...they vote for it. That final straw blew my mind, and I gave up on the PUB leadership for good. I see Trump as the crowbar to pry inside the Party and bust up their game. "A little revolution now and again."
Trump isn't anti immigration. He's pro immigration, but by purposeful policy. He is against ILLEGAL immigration. You knew that, right? Tell me you knew that, but just misspoke. He loves cheap foreign labor, and employs thousands of those folks. But he wants them to go thru the process, and wants to keep out terrorists instead of letting them in. Im for that. Its my number one issue. I can't imagine why that is controversial. America needs to wake up. Trump wants them to labor HERE, rather than elsewhere. The claims about racism and bigotry and hate speech are total bullshit.
Trump is dead wrong on his trade war rhetoric, but there is no way Congress is going to vote for harmful tariffs like they did in the Great Depression. He will use it for negotiation just like Reagan used military power during his term....to the same complaints from critics. China needs us worse than we need them, but they will respect him a whole lot more than the guy in there now. The TPP is a horrible surrender of US sovereignty, and needs to fail for that reason. He gets that part. The secret nature of its entire formation process is nauseating. Im 100% behind Jeff Sessions on that. We are a joke to foreign nations right now, and Id like to stop world government instead of enable it. I like that Trump has an America First attitude. Its about time for that to return to our policy, imo. We have lost the respect of the world. I like the way Trump wants to make America win financially in every single negotiation with other nations. Its about time. Im tired of losing. I want to win.
ObamaCare needs to be repealed. Trump's plan of replacing it with personal health savings accounts with a safety net for the abject poor is a decent step towards market competition. Nobody else is promoting a better plan. The government takeover of healthcare is the worst affront to Liberty in my lifetime. It will be almost impossible to unravel that beast of a law. UnConstitutional, no matter what Roberts contrives.
Maybe Trump is lying to me, and has me snookered. But I KNOW FOR A FACT that the others are liars, because I watched which bills they supported....until they didn't support them anymore. I don't want another Senator for Prez. Trump knows how to run things. I can tell you that Hillary or Bernie would be the biggest disaster for the nation, and Im convinced that there isn't a PUB running that will pull in DEM voters, except for Trump. He may have the most bluster, but he is the most pragmatic and generates excitement. Kasich is fine, but has the appeal of a wet rag. This is politics. So at this point, you either vote for Trump, or you get the DEM. Nobody generates excitement but him. Maybe somebody else will step up. Will be interested to see his advisory team he is announcing next week.
Johnny, very well said. Pretty much my feelings also, but still having a hard time warming up to Trump. I want a Constitutionalist and fear Trump will have little regard for it if he is elected. So we elect someone who disregards the Constitution, but rationalize that it is more or less ok because he will get things done that we want done?
ReplyDeleteWell, I know FOR A FACT that Cruz, Rubio, Bush will have little regard for the Constitution, based on their past votes and actions behind the scenes. I don't think any of them are trustworthy, and I actually believe that Trump is. I like the stuff Trump has said about what he is allowed to do as President, vs what he is NOT allowed to do.
ReplyDeleteLike I said...Trump may have me fooled, but I KNOW the other guys are not straight shooters. And I am sick up to my neck of listening to Jeb Bush bash conservatives for the last several years...just like his father used to do. No thanks. I want a crowbar to break up that Party leadership.