Those cheating Dems.

Jun 2012
40,670
14,816
Barsoom
Judicial activism is a liberal, anti-Constitution construct.

The Constitution is not a common law document. The purpose of the written Constitution is the opposite of how common law is created, which is judicial activism. Common law is created when there are no specific statutes or written constitution. This was the norm in England until the seventeenth century when the country was experiencing the same issues that we are experiencing today regarding judicial activism and the Constitution. Starting as far back as Francis Bacon’s The Elements of the Common Lawes of England, Thomas Hobbes, Sir Coke, John Locke, through Vattel and Blackstone, there was a push to codify common law because the unmitigated confusion and contradictions of courts creating law, which today is legislating from the bench.

If there was an Article III power over state laws and state constitutions, then the Constitution would have conferred federal question jurisdiction to the federal judiciary, which it did not. Congress had the opportunity to grant that power with the Judiciary Act of 1789, but they did not. It would have been a blatant violation of the federalism doctrine of the Constitution that left federal question jurisdiction to the state courts. That power was not granted until the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 and it was not conferred under the “rising under” language of Article III, which was a narrow concept as Congress doles out this power sparingly and specifically, not broadly, in such acts as the Patent Act of 1793, which gave the federal judiciary jurisdiction regarding patent law “arising under.”

The Supreme Court's power over state laws and constitutions is a liberal construct with no constitutional basis. Adam’s train wreck, the anti-federalism Judiciary Act of 1801, only granted a limited jurisdiction under the “rising under” doctrine; the act was repealed one year after its enactment. Even after the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, the Supreme Court resisted Congress’ authority to grant a broad federal question power under the “arising under” doctrine as an Article III power. One of the cases was Metcalf v. City of Watertown(1888).

Historiography, first and secondary sources, hermeneutics, whole-system thinking, the principle of compositionality, the application of the hypothetico-deductive method to history, avoiding the fallacy of nunc pro tunc, and avoiding the lure of synecdoche leads to a convergence of evidence that fully supports my opinion and do not remotely support yours.

With the lack of any controlling evidence to the contrary, my opinion is prima facie under hermeneutic equity.
 
Nov 2018
577
112
Montana
Judicial activism is a liberal, anti-Constitution construct.

The Constitution is not a common law document. The purpose of the written Constitution is the opposite of how common law is created, which is judicial activism. Common law is created when there are no specific statutes or written constitution. This was the norm in England until the seventeenth century when the country was experiencing the same issues that we are experiencing today regarding judicial activism and the Constitution. Starting as far back as Francis Bacon’s The Elements of the Common Lawes of England, Thomas Hobbes, Sir Coke, John Locke, through Vattel and Blackstone, there was a push to codify common law because the unmitigated confusion and contradictions of courts creating law, which today is legislating from the bench.

If there was an Article III power over state laws and state constitutions, then the Constitution would have conferred federal question jurisdiction to the federal judiciary, which it did not. Congress had the opportunity to grant that power with the Judiciary Act of 1789, but they did not. It would have been a blatant violation of the federalism doctrine of the Constitution that left federal question jurisdiction to the state courts. That power was not granted until the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875 and it was not conferred under the “rising under” language of Article III, which was a narrow concept as Congress doles out this power sparingly and specifically, not broadly, in such acts as the Patent Act of 1793, which gave the federal judiciary jurisdiction regarding patent law “arising under.”

The Supreme Court's power over state laws and constitutions is a liberal construct with no constitutional basis. Adam’s train wreck, the anti-federalism Judiciary Act of 1801, only granted a limited jurisdiction under the “rising under” doctrine; the act was repealed one year after its enactment. Even after the Jurisdiction and Removal Act of 1875, the Supreme Court resisted Congress’ authority to grant a broad federal question power under the “arising under” doctrine as an Article III power. One of the cases was Metcalf v. City of Watertown(1888).

Historiography, first and secondary sources, hermeneutics, whole-system thinking, the principle of compositionality, the application of the hypothetico-deductive method to history, avoiding the fallacy of nunc pro tunc, and avoiding the lure of synecdoche leads to a convergence of evidence that fully supports my opinion and do not remotely support yours.

With the lack of any controlling evidence to the contrary, my opinion is prima facie under hermeneutic equity.
This is rich! How long have you been presenting this BS on this forum? Those who really understand a subject do not need to obfuscate it to imply some arcane insight under the cover of feigned verbosity that is really only intended to bamboozle.

It would be just easier if you gave us the law review reference and the Federalist Society documents rather than attempting to claim you concocted this sesquipedalian philippic yourself de novo..

It is a fine recipe to throw in meaningless comments like " prima facie under hermeneutic equity" and a sequence of completely unnecessary phrases as "Historiography, first and secondary sources, hermeneutics, whole-system thinking, the principle of compositionality, the application of the hypothetico-deductive method to history, avoiding the fallacy of nunc pro tunc, and avoiding the lure of synecdoche leads to a convergence of evidence that fully supports my opinion and do not remotely support yours."

Your communication is reflective of someone intending to conceal ignorance rather than to demonstrate expertise.

Maybe you meant to post the following, which I admittedly did not read fully but seems to be dripping with similar diction:
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/c...sredir=1&article=3815&context=penn_law_review
 
Jun 2012
40,670
14,816
Barsoom
Comedy gold. I can always use crayolas and draw pictures if needed.

If anyone wants to make an actual rebutal to my post in the stead dancing around a rebutal, that would be great.

If anyone wants to produce the evidence, which they cannot, that I did not originate the above post, that would be great.
 
Last edited:
May 2018
3,228
1,849
Chicago
Judicial activism has become a complaint by conservatives who, in their own manner and perhaps more than progressives, introduce irrelevant intent and historically petrified thinking into major issues of social consequence while they (conservatives) pursue their own form of judicial activism in matters of firearm regulation, licentious campaign regulation, and protection of 19th century big business labor oppression. Values can be expressed by the lack of them.
You just hit the nail on the head.
 
Likes: Clara007
Nov 2018
577
112
Montana
Comedy gold. I can always use crayolas and draw pictures if needed.

If anyone wants to make an actual rebutal to my post in the stead dancing around a rebutal, that would be great.


If anyone wants to produce the evidence, which they cannot, that I did not originate the above post, that would be great.
Oh, it is very likely you extracted the phrases and big words on your own. However, I have serious doubts that you have any understanding what you have tried to express. If you really did understand your gibberish, it would not require that sort of word choice in a forum such as this one.

It is going to be difficult to persuade someone who is not interested in learning, is determined to reconstruct history and law to comport with a fabricated ethos, and who, when presented with a reasonable argument and evidence, asserts only that it does not exist.
My diagnosis...Jimmyb, sadly, you have the prolixity variant of the Black Knight Syndrome.

Word of the day= prolixity
 
Last edited:
Jun 2012
40,670
14,816
Barsoom
Comedy gold. I can always use crayolas and draw pictures if needed.

If anyone wants to make an actual rebutal to my post in the stead dancing around a rebutal, that would be great.


If anyone wants to produce the evidence, which they cannot, that I did not originate the above post, that would be great.
 
Jun 2012
40,670
14,816
Barsoom
If anyone wants to make an actual rebutal to my post in the stead dancing around a rebutal, that would be great.

If anyone wants to produce the evidence, which they cannot, that I did not originate the above post, that would be great.
 
May 2018
3,228
1,849
Chicago
Oh, it is very likely you extracted the phrases and big words on your own. However, I have serious doubts that you have any understanding what you have tried to express. If you really did understand your gibberish, it would not require that sort of word choice in a forum such as this one.

It is going to be difficult to persuade someone who is not interested in learning, is determined to reconstruct history and law to comport with a fabricated ethos, and who, when presented with a reasonable argument and evidence, asserts only that it does not exist.
My diagnosis...Jimmyb, sadly, you have the prolixity variant of the Black Knight Syndrome.

Word of the day= prolixity
It's sad to see what passes for "debate" these days, isn't it? When shown they are wrong, people simply say they don't believe the evidence right before their eyes. Instead, what they should be saying is, "Hey, thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of that before. Seems I was mistaken."
 
Likes: Clara007
Nov 2005
7,047
1,706
California
Ballot harvesting is none of the federal government's business.
You reply with yet another pointless non-sequitur...
If anyone can show me where federal civil rights laws are supported in the Constitution, that would be great.
And you try to push others to jump down your non-topical rabbit hole... :rolleyes:


I am sensing a pattern here and this has all the features of a rabbit hole especially since you seem to deny the existence of the language of the 15th....
Jimmyb reminds me of an exchange in the film Thank You For Smoking
Joey Naylor: [eating fast food, next to Ferris wheel, at the Santa Monica Amusement Pier] ... so what happens when you're wrong?
Nick Naylor: Whoa, Joey I'm never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But you can't always be right...
Nick Naylor: Well, if it's your job to be right, then you're never wrong.
Joey Naylor: But what if you are wrong?
Nick Naylor: OK, let's say that you're defending chocolate, and I'm defending vanilla. Now if I were to say to you: 'Vanilla is the best flavour ice-cream', you'd say...
Joey Naylor: No, chocolate is.
Nick Naylor: Exactly, but you can't win that argument... so, I'll ask you: so you think chocolate is the end all and the all of ice-cream, do you?
Joey Naylor: It's the best ice-cream, I wouldn't order any other.
Nick Naylor: Oh! So it's all chocolate for you is it?
Joey Naylor: Yes, chocolate is all I need.
Nick Naylor: Well, I need more than chocolate, and for that matter I need more than vanilla. I believe that we need freedom. And choice when it comes to our ice-cream, and that Joey Naylor, that is the definition of liberty.
Joey Naylor: But that's not what we're talking about
Nick Naylor: Ah! But that's what I'm talking about.
Joey Naylor: ...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best...
Nick Naylor: I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right.
Joey Naylor: But you still didn't convince me
Nick Naylor: It's that I'm not after you. I'm after them.
Quotes from "Thank You for Smoking"
He's typically not posting to actually argue the topic of the thread. He's typically not trying to show how the left is wrong on the topic of the thread.
He's trying to draw people into a side topic to argue they're wrong on something else... ;)


What you're seeing is that not all right wingers agree on many things.
I'm not addressing the rest of your non-topical derailment.

If you disagree with the OP, can you point me to where you have stated that?
Or are you insinuating that when you don't agree with a right winger, instead of stating the disagreement you instead try to derail the discussion?
 
Likes: Biff