Judge Posner: ‘No value’ in studying the U.S. Constitution

[borgranta]

 

he only decided Moore as a flipping of the bird to Scalia and trying to dump the whole thing in his lap. But AG Madigan would not appeal

 

 

And I've always wondered why she didn't appeal.

Probably asked not to by Bloomberg and co - so as not to risk setting a National precident.

If she had we would likely have national unregulated open carry.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

With all the open talk lately about the complete contempt many of our public servants who think they are our leaders, it is high time to remove many of them for violating the oaths they have taken to uphold the constitution.

 

It's amazing how they publicly break that oath routinely.

[InterestedBystander]

Posner apologizes

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2016/07/01/posner-says-he-didnt-mean-to-suggest-the-constitution-is-useless/

 

By JACOB GERSHMAN

Jul 1, 2016 7:38 pm ET

 

Judge Richard Posner wants to be clear: The U.S. Constitution is actually worth reading.

 

The iconoclastic federal appeals judge from Chicago on Friday walked back his assertion in a Slate column that the nation’s founding document has no use for judges today.

 

Judge Posner, who regularly contributes to Slate’s “Breakfast Table” feature, posted a follow-up entry Friday apologizing to readers for what he termed was a lack of clarity on his part.

 

Some of my contributions this year have drawn an unusual number of criticisms, focused on language I used that could be read as suggesting that I don’t think the Constitution has any role to play in interpreting the law—that it should be forgotten; that constitutional law is and must and maybe should be entirely a judicial creation, like fields of common law.

 

That was not my intention, and I apologize if carelessness resulted in my misleading readers.

 

The remainder of Judge Posner’s column revisits the point he was trying to make about the challenge of interpreting the Constitution, articulating an approach at odds with the “textual originalism” that Justice Scalia pioneered. The “vagueness” pervading the 17th century document and the Bill of Rights, he says, requires judges “to do the best they can” to fill in the gaps with a modern constitutional law.

 

His point about the Constitution’s vagueness isn’t a new one but one he conveyed to lawmakers at his confirmation hearing in 1981.

[Molly B.]

Afraid he would be removed from the bench for his treasonous remarks? I see very little to misread in his remarks, they seem very clear, "I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation . . . ."

[kwc]

Afraid he would be removed from the bench for his treasonous remarks?

 

^^^^ This!

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

 

Afraid he would be removed from the bench for his treasonous remarks?

^^^^ This!

 

So how do we remove him?

 

I have to say I am not shocked there isn't more outrage, but I am a little sickened by it.

[Indigo]

He would have to be caught standing over a body, with the knife in his hand, dripping blood.

[tkroenlein]

He would have to be caught standing over a body, with the knife in his hand, dripping blood.

 

...by 3 major news agencies, with cameras rolling, in front of the full congress, and.....

[chislinger]

 

 

Afraid he would be removed from the bench for his treasonous remarks?

^^^^ This!

 

So how do we remove him?

 

I have to say I am not shocked there isn't more outrage, but I am a little sickened by it.

 

Funny how many of those upset over Posner aren't upset about the judge in my sig.

[AlphaKoncepts aka CGS]

Never heard of Nick Williams until you just pointed it out now. Nobody reads anyones signatures LOL.

Ok now that you brought it to my attention, Nick Williams sickens me too!

[chislinger]

Of course, aside from the similarity between their statements, one is a local probate judge in Alabama and the other is a presidentially-appointed judge (former chief judge) on a federal circuit court of appeals and an author of over 40 books. The latter is likely to get more attention.

Either one has the ability to destroy your life - or even end it - according to their beliefs they hold more important than the Constitution.

[kwc]

Of course, aside from the similarity between their statements, one is a local probate judge in Alabama and the other is a presidentially-appointed judge (former chief judge) on a federal circuit court of appeals and an author of over 40 books. The latter is likely to get more attention.

 

[kwc]

No argument that the Constitution needs to be first and foremost the document that governs our system of government. It should be a given that a judge would fully honor the COTUS, but unfortunately in today's culture we can't assume that.

[borgranta]

Did he inadvertently renounce his oath of office when he publicly trashed the constitution?

[Trevis]

Did he inadvertently renounce his oath of office when he publicly trashed the constitution?

Probably. But who would hold him accountable? He's deified by state power.

[skinnyb82]

He backtracked but it's impossible to back off one statement when there's a few dozen that support the statements made in the Slate article. Below are some of Posner's previous statements on constitutional matters (from transcripts verified as accurate by Posner himself).

 

Statement made last year at the Loyola Constitutional Law Colloquium where he basically says SCOTUS needs to step in and allow a 21 year old to be sworn in as POTUS because, well, why not allow college juniors to run this country, what could go wrong....

 

"There are also provisions that are not regarded as justiciable. If a candidate for President happened to be 25, or 21 (like Napoleon) and was elected, and suit was brought to say he is too young, I would think a sensible court for the Supreme Court to say this is not not justiciable. If people want the young president, fine. There is no legal analysis to be performed. Not everything in any document, statute or Constitution, is necessarily justiciable."

 

....and here's his "I didn't ACTUALLY say that, here's what I MEANT (you buffoons)"....

 

"What I think is undeniably true is that while the Constitution contains a number of specific provisions—such as the prohibition of titles of nobility (a slap at our former English rulers, who mainly were kings and aristocrats), the requirement that the president be at least 35 years old, and the very detailed provisions regarding congressional authority—many other provisions are quite vague."

 

Dismissed the Oath of Office as....well, irrelevant as the federal constitution is (presumably) irrelevant....

 

"It’s funny to talk about the oath judges take to uphold the constitution since the Supreme Court has transformed the Constitution in its decisions. The oath is not really to the original constitution, or to the constitution as amended. It is to some body of law created by the Supreme Court. You can forget about the oath. That is not of significance."

 

Published in the Yale Law Journal, stating that the notion that we're governed by the documents drafted in the 18th and 19th centuries as "nonsense"....

 

"Federal constitutional law is the most amorphous body of American law because most of the Constitution is very old, cryptic, or vague. The notion that the twenty-first century can be ruled by documents authored in the eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries is nonsense. . . . I think we can forget about the 18th century, much of the text. We ask with respect to contemporary constitutional issues, ask what is a sensible response."

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

[GTX63]

 

So how do we remove him?

 

I have to say I am not shocked there isn't more outrage, but I am a little sickened by it.

 

Funny how many of those upset over Posner aren't upset about the judge in my sig.

 

 

Folks choose the battles they believe affect their immediate world. Doesn't make it right or wrong.

 

Seems to be an increasing practice in the last 20 years or so to dilute the weight of one infraction by countering with other examples of real or perceived injustices by people more in line with one's ideology.

One of HRCs common mechanisms for the email debacle is to point out Colin Powell and Ms. Rice; doesn't matter what the facts are, just offset your malfeasance and call it a wash.

Point out Obama's foreign policy and wait for the re listing Bush and the middle east.

Posner seems to be of a mindset that is becoming common these days among government thatd only becomes more empowered by the apathy and ignorance of the people.