Do you think the 4th Amendment prevents the federal government from tapping your phone without a warrant? Because the drafters certainly didn't mean that when they protected citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. But a judges have interpreted the term "search" to include wiretaps and electronic surveillance even though that was not originally contemplated.
Antonin Scalia
- Thread starter gunslingerdick
- Start date
I would argue that it was originally contemplated and that is why they didn't say it applied to specific situations/things. They were smart enough to know that there will be things that they can't think of or would forget to include which is why specifics were left out in that situation.
This just begs the question, though. What "things" that they didn't contemplate are protected? Certainly the Internet wasn't contemplated. How much of Internet traffic is protected by the 4th Amendment? These are not easy questions, and they require that the Constitution's language be interpreted in the context of modern society.
Or one could argue that they require someone in the legislative branch draw up a bill to speak to these types of things instead of having the SCOTUS "interpret" what it could possibly mean.
True, but in this case I consider the definition/list of "things" separate from the original meaning of the constitution itself. Defining what "things" are protected does not change the original meaning/intent of the constitution itself. I know that sounds like a minor difference, but I think that it's an important one.
But that's exactly what the Constitution is supposed to protect against! The Constitution constrains Congress. Congress can't draft a bill giving the FBI the right to search your house without a warrant because that is blatantly unconstitutional. But can Congress draft a bill giving the FBI the right to read your emails? Does the Constitution protect you against that? It certainly wasn't contemplated at the time, but is it a "search?" A lot of people would say yes, even though that's not what was meant when the document was drafted.
Vote the nominee down in committee? Or are you suggesting it should make it to the floor?
Ironically, Scalia would have been one of the biggest allies of the citizen in a 4th amendment hearing.
At any rate, you don't have anything to worry about. Hilldog is going to win this easy and she can then nominate Barry to move from the White House to the bench. No way Trump could possibly win. In fact, I have been told for several months now that he is dropping out any second.
If the committee votes the nominee down, that's certainly their right. At least the process was followed, and that's all I'm personally interested in. I'm just troubled by the suggestion that the Senate would do nothing with any nominee, regardless of who it is. No hearing, no vote, no nothing. I think that's a dangerous precedent.
I think the country would be better served by obama having to nominate a moderate that would satisfy the pubs rather than risk hillary or cruz or trump nominating some extremist
I don't think Hillary would go extreme. I'm also not convinced that Hillary will be the democratic nominee. I sure hope not.
I do agree with you about what Obama should do, however.
That's definitely true. If he doesn't offer up someone who would be approved, then he would miss a chance to change the make up of the court. A republican appointment would keep the current make up, but by appointing a moderate he takes away a conservative vote.
Yes Strum. For many months, we have been hearing that Trump is finished and will be dropping out any second- that his latest stunt will surely drive him from the race.
I personally think the GOP should allow a nomination and if they get a Saul Alinsky or Elizabeth Warren, vote that nominee down and make Obama try again.
But the GOP has never understood how to look magnanimous and placate the base, although to me it seems simple. Instead of "we won't allow any Obama nominee to go to vote", it should be "we look forward to receiving the President's nominee and we trust we can count on him to send us someone who will appeal to both sides of the aisle" and then shitcan anyone short of Robert Bork.
36 Supreme Court Nominees were rejected. 25 were never voted on. Source-( Congressional Research Service )
I have to disagree on the first two points, but I can agree on the third.
Hillary will win not only the democratic nomination, but the whole shebang as well. Her toughest competition is probably Bernie, because he makes her have to take a different angle. She can usually out-liberal opponents, but she can't out-liberal Bernie, so she has instead turned to slurping Obama every chance she gets to act as if she'll be Obama 2.0. While that schtick isn't all that popular even with the democratic base, it doesn't much matter. The system is weighted in her favor with the whole Super Delegates process, which she holds some commanding lead amongst a very very select few, who can vote for her regardless of what the general populace wants. I forget the exact percentages, but I believe she has something like 90% of the Super Delegates (even though she's currently losing to Bernie in general delegates). And with that commanding lead, she only needs to win something like 43% of the general delegates to win the nomination. The whole super delegates process is a sham, and was set up for just this occasion, so that the party leaders could nominate who they wanted to, even if it was in stark contrast of the general vote (not very democratic now, is it?).
Once she loses the primary, but gets put in anyways due to the super delegates, she'll be up against either Trump or one of the rest of the GOP crowd. Her campaign team will be very good at making Trump out to be a maniacal blowhard. At that point she'll be able to go back to her very liberal stances, and use that to win the election. If she gets matched up against anyone else from the GOP she probably doesn't even need to show up to debates - none of them have the name recognition to stand much of a chance against her, which is really what it comes down to unfortunately, as the majority of the voters don't know or care about the actual issues.
Once she wins the presidency, she's home free, and can nominate the extreme liberal that she wants to get the seat. The fact she didn't shoot down the idea of Obama being that nominee shows that she has no regard for experience, and simply wants to make a monumental appointment.
Miguel Estrada got a hearing, and his nomination was sent to the floor where he was filibustered. That's a hearing and an opportunity for a vote. If Republicans want to filibuster the nominee after a hearing, great. But they said they won't even give the nominee a hearing. That's my problem with this.
Link? Also, those include filibusters, which again, I'm fine with. How many never got a hearing because the Senate refused?
On constitutional issues, the right to amend the Constitution constrains the Supreme Court.
I think Scalia believed that the words of the Constitution had a straight-forward meaning that should be enforced in a straight-forward manner. He believed if the US population wanted to change the words it was perfectly in their right to do so via the Amendment process. That is how the Constitution is supposed to be a "living document." We stopped doing it that way in recent times with contrived, made-up rights that were never envisioned in the original document...
Did you read the rest of the thread? Do you think the 4th Amendment protects against warrantless wiretaps and email surveillance? Those protections were certainly not intended by the drafters, but I don't think they're "contrived" either. Should we have to amend the Constitution to clarify that "search" includes technologies not in existence when the document was drafted? Or is it okay to acknowledge that "search" might mean something more today than it meant in 1789?
So you would be fine if they came out and said, "we have absolutely no intention of confirming anyone that would be appointed by President Obama. But since there is a certain protocol, and despite our intentions to kill any appointment, we will have the purposeless hearing and waste tax payer dollars."
And the point of a filibuster is? (To deny a vote)
CNN (TV). The 25 weren't filibustered. They were never voted on.
If the constitution is a living document, the Supreme Court has no restraints.
Don't pretend they are forgoing the hearing to save taxpayer money. That's absurd. They're refusing to hold a hearing because they don't want the public to see, right before the election, that they're rejecting a qualified candidate for purely political reasons.
As I said before, if they can issue a blanket refusal of all nominees without even holding a hearing, there's no reason to limit it to the last year of the president's term. Both parties should just announce that they won't consider any nominee from an opposing party's president, ever. Then when one party finally gets the White House and 60% of the Senate, they can fill every empty seat with whoever they want. It would be a fitting testament to the state of our democracy.
If you don't know Obama by now I can't help you buddy. The man has an agenda and it is clear. Read his books and watch everything he says. That guy could not care less about Justice Scalia and yes I'm sure he was thrilled.
I'm sorry, I should have stated that I was looking for a "yes"/"no" answer. So....yes or no?
I think the Constitutionally mandated mechanism for amending the Constitution should be utilized - that way the entire country gets to weigh-in on these issues. I don't disagree that the Constitution isn't and shouldn't be a "Living Document" - it can and should be a living document via the Amendment process.
I think the GOP owe the DIMs some payback for several reasons: 1) Obama fillibustered Alito, now he's bitching; 2) Reid blew up the Senate with his use of the Nuclear Option; and 3) As a general principle, Obama has earned it.
I think you may be right about Shillary winning the DIM nomination, but the manner in which she does it without the popular vote and carried by Super Delegate party bosses will haunt her. She will be perceived as being nominated by the DIM Politburo; ironically, Col. Socio-Sanders will be screwed by DIM party bosses..
No, I'm sorry. I usually expect there to be a question mark if someone wants a direct response. No.
Democrats never refused to give a nominee a hearing. If Republicans want to vote down a qualified candidate after a hearing, then fine. But what they're proposing is an escalation of partisanship. If they can do this, there's no reason for any party to ever take any action on the opposing party's nominees. They'll cave, though, like they always do. Republicans are great at overplaying a weak hand.
So you think the Constitution, as drafted, allows the FBI to wiretap your phone without a warrant?
No, the Fourth Amendment already covers that. FBI Warrantless wiretaps are and always have been illegal from a Constitutional standpoint:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Activist judges on both sides of the isle have bastardized the meaning and intent of this article for years.
If further clarification of the Amendment is required, the Constitution should be Amended.
Last edited:
You're torturing common sense in a vailiant effort to make distinctions that in reality have no differences to the bottom line. If GOPers cave, fine with me. I would just like Obama's nominee to receive the same treatment Obama gave Alito. And, if the nominee gets a hearing, that nominee shouldn't get approved through the Judiciary Committee; if the nominee happens to obtain approval in Judiciary Committee and he makes it to a floor vote, his confirmation vote should be rightfully fillibustered until hell freezes over; if hell freezes over and the fillibuster is broken, fine - the nominee won't obtain Senate approval. The bottom line is the same, except a ton of money will be wasted on his/her behalf and people like you will go on trying to make distinctions without differences.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
After Surviving Internal Threats, ACC Now Has a Men’s Basketball Problem- Latest: 90sWoollenGymRat
-
-
-
-
