tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post426288842011179812..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: More First Amendment nonsenseMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger22125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-58294193391201395782012-04-07T20:30:26.772-04:002012-04-07T20:30:26.772-04:00Thomas,
"If that were the case, it would be...Thomas,<br /><br /> "If that were the case, it would be true to say that God exists if there were a legal power that required people to behave as if that were so."<br /><br />Good point for discussion. Court's can't change objective reality; if a Court decreed the speed of light was 20 mph, that would not make it so. What I have been discussing is the interpretation of KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-38267235767101584322012-04-07T13:41:23.832-04:002012-04-07T13:41:23.832-04:00KyCobb,
Your argument is a non-sequitor. You thin...KyCobb,<br /><br />Your argument is a non-sequitor. You think that if in the real world people are expected to behave as if something is true, then it is true. If that were the case, it would be true to say that God exists if there were a legal power that required people to behave as if that were so.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-85975965748962341092012-04-06T11:52:52.799-04:002012-04-06T11:52:52.799-04:00Thomas,
"It's another matter entirely to...Thomas,<br /><br />"It's another matter entirely to say that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says that it says. That's manifestly false, and if that is your point, you're simply being logically incoherent."<br /><br />Whether you like it or not, when the SCOTUS renders an opinion on what the Constitution means, that opinion has the force and effect of law, KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36817826192617763952012-04-06T11:02:20.560-04:002012-04-06T11:02:20.560-04:00Martin,
If I misinterpreted your comment on Dred ...Martin,<br /><br />If I misinterpreted your comment on Dred Scott, please correct me. It seemed to me you were saying that if Dred Scott was true in 1857its still true today.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-44372417405909609412012-04-06T10:19:51.159-04:002012-04-06T10:19:51.159-04:00Thomas,
If KyCobb can interpret the First Amendme...Thomas,<br /><br />If KyCobb can interpret the First Amendment to mean whatever he wants it to mean, then surely he can interpret my post to mean whatever he wants it to mean.<br /><br />But on the other hand, he obviously doesn't believe he is in sole possession of the knowledge of the one true interpretation of my remarks, which makes you wonder why he's commenting on this thread at all.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-33868503474739793792012-04-06T10:11:55.240-04:002012-04-06T10:11:55.240-04:00KyCobb,
I'm not sure you are saying anything ...KyCobb,<br /><br />I'm not sure you are saying anything coherent. To the extent you're saying that the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution have precendential status and that some provisions of the Constitution seem vague, you're not saying anything new or interesting. I cannot think of a single person that would disagree with those statements.<br /><br />It's Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-48359393984534974872012-04-06T08:35:00.530-04:002012-04-06T08:35:00.530-04:00Thomas,
"Where does he say there is only &qu...Thomas,<br /><br />"Where does he say there is only "one" "absolutely correct" reading of the Constitution?"<br /><br />I'm interpreting his comments, for example, his saying that if the Court's determination in Dred Scott was "true" in 1857, its still true today.<br /><br />"They all argue that their interpretation is correct, which means theyKyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-55147214091115755012012-04-06T08:10:27.977-04:002012-04-06T08:10:27.977-04:00Where does he say there is only "one" &q...Where does he say there is only "one" "absolutely correct" reading of the Constitution? It looks to me like the original post just said that one particular reading of a constitutional provision was incorrect and one other particular reading is correct.<br /><br />Your claim seems to be that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. But no justice on the Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-62869688234336010282012-04-05T23:30:41.132-04:002012-04-05T23:30:41.132-04:00Thomas,
"The question is whether the Supreme...Thomas,<br /><br />"The question is whether the Supreme Court can misconstrue the Constitution. If the Supreme Court gets it dead wrong, then it's not clear they shouldn't correct themselves."<br /><br />They correct themselves frequently. Martin seems to have this belief that there is one absolutely correct interpretation of the Constitution, and any other interpretation is KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63605541618321093052012-04-05T18:49:04.078-04:002012-04-05T18:49:04.078-04:00Kycobb,
All you're saying (now) is that the S...Kycobb,<br /><br />All you're saying (now) is that the Supreme Court's interpretations of the Constitution will have the status as precedent. Well, duh, no-one's arguing with that.<br /><br />The question is whether the Supreme Court can misconstrue the Constitution. If the Supreme Court gets it dead wrong, then it's not clear they shouldn't correct themselves.Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-46822944637592088022012-04-05T16:37:38.803-04:002012-04-05T16:37:38.803-04:00Martin,
"The Supreme Court said that slavery...Martin,<br /><br />"The Supreme Court said that slavery was protected in the Constitution, therefore, it is true to say that slavery is protected in the Constitution.<br /><br />That's the logical consequence of your position.<br /><br />According to your view, the Supreme Court could never overturn a case, since it had already decreed something to be true."<br /><br />Slavery was KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-67894336152168063452012-04-05T16:29:16.455-04:002012-04-05T16:29:16.455-04:00Thomas,
"Does the First Amendment prohibit C...Thomas,<br /><br />"Does the First Amendment prohibit Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion?"<br /><br />If five members of the Supreme Court say it doesn't, then as a legal matter, it doesn't.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-9676821999094432542012-04-05T11:53:26.519-04:002012-04-05T11:53:26.519-04:00The Supreme Court said that slavery was protected ...<i>The Supreme Court said that slavery was protected in the Constitution, therefore, it is true to say that slavery is protected in the Constitution.</i><br /><br />Do we really need to have a lesson on ther difference between "was" and "is"?<br /><br /><i>According to your view, the Supreme Court could never overturn a case, since it had already decreed something to be true.<One Browhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11938816242512563561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-29901403020202596932012-04-05T11:06:20.933-04:002012-04-05T11:06:20.933-04:00KyCobb,
I'm confused. If the Supreme Court sa...KyCobb,<br /><br />I'm confused. If the Supreme Court said it, then it is true. That is your stated position. The Supreme Court said that slavery was protected in the Constitution, therefore, it is true to say that slavery is protected in the Constitution.<br /><br />That's the logical consequence of your position.<br /><br />According to your view, the Supreme Court could never overturn Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-9982754980410739682012-04-05T10:27:41.509-04:002012-04-05T10:27:41.509-04:00Kycobb,
Suppose the Supreme Court says "nowh...Kycobb,<br /><br />Suppose the Supreme Court says "nowhere does the First Amendment prohibit Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion." The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...."<br /><br />Does the First Amendment prohibit Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion?Thomas M. Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07824873424225826685noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-70540569180636960792012-04-05T07:50:57.683-04:002012-04-05T07:50:57.683-04:00Martin,
Dred Scott was decided at a time when mos...Martin,<br /><br />Dred Scott was decided at a time when most african-americans had the same status as domestic cattle, recognized by the Constitution, so at the time it was not an unreasonable interpretation of the Constitution, as heinous as it was.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-64902441072697797092012-04-05T00:41:40.398-04:002012-04-05T00:41:40.398-04:00KyCobb,
I wasn't talking about Obamacare; I w...KyCobb,<br /><br />I wasn't talking about Obamacare; I was talking about <i>Dred Scott v. Sandford</i>.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-41536015468696197112012-04-04T23:19:07.585-04:002012-04-04T23:19:07.585-04:00Martin,
If you are talking about Obamacare, regar...Martin,<br /><br />If you are talking about Obamacare, regardless of the fact that I and many other lawyers, including conservative judges, think its constitutional, if five Supreme Court judges disagree, then its unconstitutional. They have the final say.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-61113776146733064132012-04-04T21:40:21.745-04:002012-04-04T21:40:21.745-04:00KyCobb,
Alright, just clarifying before we take t...KyCobb,<br /><br />Alright, just clarifying before we take this any further: Anything the Supreme Court says is true is true?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34897644425432645742012-04-04T21:35:21.517-04:002012-04-04T21:35:21.517-04:00Well yes, Martin. If you don't believe me, as...Well yes, Martin. If you don't believe me, ask any of the state and local governments which have ended up having to pay big legal fees to the ACLU for promoting religion.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-16431470271025519142012-04-04T21:02:54.184-04:002012-04-04T21:02:54.184-04:00KyCobb,
But just because SCOTUS claims it's t...KyCobb,<br /><br />But just because SCOTUS claims it's true makes it true?Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-65571260023267463952012-04-04T20:52:36.814-04:002012-04-04T20:52:36.814-04:00The SCOTUS has long held that the 1st Amendment ap...The SCOTUS has long held that the 1st Amendment applies to the states via incorporation by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Just because you claim otherwise doesn't make it true.KyCobbnoreply@blogger.com