You on the Supreme Court

[Ethel mermania]

#metoo

The document says what it says. You want to change it, to say sexual orientation and gender identity are covered by it there is process to do so defined in the document.

The constitution isn't a big ball of fluffy goodness, it is a document written by flawed men about their notion of an ideal government. I think they did pretty well, and the thing they did best was to have an amendment process. What the constitution to mean something else, change it.

But should we take other documents those flawed men wrote into account when interpretating the text? Franklin for instance wrote a "how to safely perform an abortion at home" text; indicating he did not oppose the practice.

I dont oppose the process. Its not constitutionally protected. Congress can legislate to make it legal. When they do so it will be law of the land.

[Big Jim P]

Its not irrelevant,

It’s completely irrelevant. Your statement of support has no bearing on relevance, praising the founders has no relevance, and thinking a purely textual reading is even possible has no relevance since anything is open to interpretation making the idea itself impossible.

and your interpretation of originalism wrong. The thirteenth amendment makes slavery illegal, the 14th guarantees voting rights for men. The 19th women's voting rights. Originalism would apply to what they meant when written. You know that yet would rather compare folks who don't support your position to slavers.

That’s purely your interpretation of the constitution. You are interpreting that you think you know what they meant. Orginalism is a term meant to make one interpretation sound more official than another, it’s a lie.

The only people who want to "interpret" plainly written text are those who disagree with the text and either want it to mean something it does not or want to find something that is not there.

[Big Jim P]

But should we take other documents those flawed men wrote into account when interpretating the text? Franklin for instance wrote a "how to safely perform an abortion at home" text; indicating he did not oppose the practice.

I dont oppose the process. Its not constitutionally protected. Congress can legislate to make it legal. When they do so it will be law of the land.

Or, as mentioned, there is the amendment process. Put it in the constitution if you want it there. Don't pretend to find it where it's not.

[Heloin]

It’s completely irrelevant. Your statement of support has no bearing on relevance, praising the founders has no relevance, and thinking a purely textual reading is even possible has no relevance since anything is open to interpretation making the idea itself impossible.


That’s purely your interpretation of the constitution. You are interpreting that you think you know what they meant. Orginalism is a term meant to make one interpretation sound more official than another, it’s a lie.

The only people who want to "interpret" plainly written text are those who disagree with the text and either want it to mean something it does not or want to find something that is not there.

8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now what is excessive? If you give any answer not provided in that single line you have made an interpretation. That you claim there is a purely plain text reading is a lie to make your interpretation sound more official.

[Big Jim P]

The only people who want to "interpret" plainly written text are those who disagree with the text and either want it to mean something it does not or want to find something that is not there.

8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now what is excessive? If you give any answer not provided in that single line you have made an interpretation. That you claim there is a purely plain text reading is a lie to make your interpretation sound more official.

Not interpretations. Standards to be set.

[Necroghastia]

8th Amendment: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Now what is excessive? If you give any answer not provided in that single line you have made an interpretation. That you claim there is a purely plain text reading is a lie to make your interpretation sound more official.

Not interpretations. Standards to be set.

Set based on...?

[Big Jim P]

Not interpretations. Standards to be set.

Set based on...?

Probably the median fine etc in the courts jurisdiction. As far as I can see, SCOTUS doesn't issue fines etc. The lower courts do.

[Ifreann]

Set based on...?

Probably the median fine etc in the courts jurisdiction. As far as I can see, SCOTUS doesn't issue fines etc. The lower courts do.

Where does "median fine etc in the courts jurisdiction" appear in the text of the 8th Amendment? Or is it somewhere else in the Constitution?

[Reverend Norv]

Set based on...?

Probably the median fine etc in the courts jurisdiction. As far as I can see, SCOTUS doesn't issue fines etc. The lower courts do.

But SCOTUS does have to decide what should be an unconstitutionally excessive fine. That could mean that when a fine departs drastically from the median fine in a jurisdiction, it is unconstitutionally excessive. Or it could mean that when a fine is far beyond what a particular defendant could reasonably be expected to pay, it is excessive. Or we could do a historical analysis and see what the average fine-to-income ratio was at the time the Constitution was written. Or we could do that analysis at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, if we are dealing with a state fine. And there are arguments to be made for each of these rules. But to adopt any one of them - including yours - is still to adopt an interpretation of the original language.