1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

RIP Antonin Scalia

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Steak Snabler, Feb 13, 2016.

  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    That the Constitution should be interpreted, as best as we can discern, in accordance with the Framers' intent.
     
  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    So like their belief that corporation were people?
     
  3. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I don't understand what argument you are trying to make, or where you are attempting to take this.

    To reset: It was posited that originalism, a method of constitutional interpretation, was premised upon the assumption that the Framers were "always right."

    It's not.
     
  4. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I believe that justices like Scalia believe they are always right by making decisions they want to make and arguing it's the Founding Fathers' intent.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Scalia believes who is always right? I'm not following.
     
  6. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Who do you think Scalia thinks is always right? Your choices are him and everyone else in history.
     
  7. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I don't understand what you are arguing against or in favor of.

    To reset: Someone stated that originalism was the idea that the Founding Fathers were "always right." As a clever "gotcha" against originalists, I believe that he noted that slavery is written into the Constitution. Hence, to believe the Founding Fathers were "always right," you have to accept that they were right about slavery.

    That's not a valid or effective argument against originalism, which, as a theory, does not believe that the Founding Fathers were "always right," or sometimes right, or occasionally right. It's not a normative method.
     
  8. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    I am just saying that trying to divine intent is wrong and egotistical. It's also a way to make a backward decision and blame someone else. You should go by what is written and make your case that way.

    But the originalists and their fans seem to act like their way is the right way because they can read the mind of Thomas Jefferson or whatever.
     
  9. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    That's fine, and that's a valid argument against it. I don't consider myself an originalist. In fact, I think people should argue against it. I was very specifically pushing back against the idea that the Founding Fathers are "always right." That's not what originalism is, and that argument will fail if you try to deploy it against an originalist.
     
  10. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    Were you on the debate team as a kid?
     
  11. Twirling Time

    Twirling Time Well-Known Member

    When I was in school, the only debate I got involved in was whether the keg should be Bud or Miller.
     
    Ace likes this.
  12. franticscribe

    franticscribe Well-Known Member

    Clearly the answer was Busch.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page