Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

The infamous BACKGROUND check that did not exist for over 225 YEARS.

Ok. Go out and shoot a Black person and see what those 225 year old words have to say at your criminal trial. This isn't frickin rocket science.

Well that was absolutely ludicrous.

So you agree with GUILTY until Proven innocent sans trail by courts of law.

a reply to: neo96

Nah just a person that actually bothered to READ citizens united.

Maybe you did, but it looks like you didn't comprehend what I said.

NO ONE should be trying to buy politicians.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda, but it happens and it is legal just look at the superpacs.

And if you REALLY wanted to get the money out of politics.

END social programs that are used to buy votes.

No, the way you do that is by limiting the amount that can be donated and the entities that are allowed to donate.

Corperations and Unions should not be allowed to funnel billions into their chosen candidate

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace
The whole "constitution is outdated" argument is one of the most ignorant arguments against the constitution there is. Do some folks really believe that when writing the constitution they weren't smart enough to realize that innovation happens? Some folks want to apply critical thinking to the topic, so let's do it.

Of course the writers of the constitution didn't know, or even could've known, what kind of advancements would be made. Maybe, just maybe, it's the whole reason they wrote a few of the amendments in an all encompassing way. It was by purpose the words were written in "vague" way. So no matter what breakthroughs, innovations, or technological advancements might be made, rights remain intact.

There's no way that the founding members could've predicted the internet for instance. That's why the first doesn't just say newspapers and letters. There's no way the founding members could've predicted assault weapons. That's why the second doesn't just say flintlock pistols and black powder rifles.

All encompassing is just that, all encompassing. The whole argument stating that the founding fathers just couldn't have known just doesn't float. It's a pathetic argument.

But women and blacks were not allowed to vote, and that is ok with you?

Pathetic statement. Rights were extended in that case. Not restricted or taken away. Nice try.

They were restricted in 1787, what part of that do you right wing asshats not understand, they were restricted. Idiot much?

And it took an amendment in 1870 to change that and an act in 1965 to effect it. Both instances of extending rights. Not restricting them.

I took 180 years, and they were extended, so in your tiny mind, that makes it right.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

The infamous BACKGROUND check that did not exist for over 225 YEARS.

Ok. Go out and shoot a Black person and see what those 225 year old words have to say at your criminal trial. This isn't frickin rocket science.

Well that was absolutely ludicrous.

Exactly my point. But you continue with it. I'm just point the finger towards logic.

a reply to: BubbaJoe


So what's your point? Extended rights vs restricting rights... You're pretty far off the deep end.

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: EternalSolace

originally posted by: Liquesence
a reply to: neo96

Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all,

Does it take an extraordinary measure for you ( or most people, for that matter) to access (buy or bear) a firearm?

It does in quite a few states. Not to mention that as a Kentucky resident, if I travel to California, Illinois, or New York I'm effectively stripped of my right to bear arms.

Just curious. How often do you do that?

Does it matter? Just once is enough. You know... rights and all.

Do you belong to a well regulated militia?

Who makes up a militia? The people. Can't really form a militia with unarmed citizens can you?

Am still waiting on a copy of those regulations for a well regulated militia.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

He sees no value in studying any of it.

Sounds like he's really out of touch if you ask me.

I bet Obama agrees 100%.

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner in a post published to Slate, U.S. judges should stop studying the Constitution.

“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,” Posner argued.

Priceless gem of a post, X. Bumped all the way to the 9th
if we could do him.. he deserves to be on the 9th Appeals
gang with that gaffe. MAybe a little further east if possible,
like Shanghai.
7th? Is this the same Posner that blew up one day hearing
about it-- and finally shouted
"I will not allow the Constitution in my court!"


Personally I for a long time before this saw no value to the
bench by keeping Dick Poser on it. More a liability, and no typo.

Do you have a source? Am being lazy, but read his wiki, and he seems to be a pretty moderate guy.

STRIKA THREE FOR ME, Bubba! As much as I dislike this guy, and am a
Chicagoan, the source of the gaffe was from a Denver judge.
I hate posting wrong stuff, and you and the mods have my apologies.

That guy is brain dead and he needs to be kicked out of office.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: BubbaJoe


So what's your point? Extended rights vs restricting rights... You're pretty far off the deep end.

No I am pretty pissed about all you right wing asshats wanting your 2 A rights, while wanting to deny rights to women, gays, trans folks. The constitution of this country and our other founding documents are pretty good, but the haters have put the kibash to that. If you are a responsible gun owner, I have no issues, my kid had problems in NY too. Unfortunately we open the news every morning to accidental shooting, mentally ill people shooting their family members, I as a gun owner am tired of it.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

What about bankers,ceo's, and rich folks, basically EVERYONE 'right' wing opposites HATE the ever living hell out of.

I guess THEY don't have ANY rights.

As for the trans issue.

Hardly considering PEOPLE are either born in to two MAJORITY groups then use money, and modern medicine to turn themselves in to something else. Then try to claim minority' rights.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: EternalSolace
a reply to: BubbaJoe


So what's your point? Extended rights vs restricting rights... You're pretty far off the deep end.

Unfortunately we open the news every morning to accidental shooting, mentally ill people shooting their family members, I as a gun owner am tired of it.

And that will never be solved by further restricting our rights. Someone goes out and commits a horrendous act of terror and instead of holding them accountable and the agencies who dropped the ball, people would rather come after the rights of millions of others. An accidental shooting happens and instead of improving access to safety classes and training, the answer is to take away the rights completely.

See what I'm pissed about?

a reply to: EternalSolace

Pathetic statement. Rights were extended in that case. Not restricted or taken away. Nice try.

The right to deny rights was taken away

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: EternalSolace

Pathetic statement. Rights were extended in that case. Not restricted or taken away. Nice try.

The right to deny rights was taken away

Tomāto vs Tomäto

a reply to: EternalSolace

It's an important difference

Rights weren't withheld and then bestowed - out of thin air or the goodness of someone's heart

It was decided that people could no longer deny rights to people based on their personal beliefs - or preferences

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I don't get the "God given rights" thing. We're these right in the same place for the Natives? Not a geographical thing? Given to whom then? Not Natives? Rich, white men? No one else had rights then. Not even poor white men. Well, they could vote. That's about it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

Judge should clearly be recalled, since he swore to uphold the constitution, which he obviously doesn't understand, and therefore is unfit for duty.

a reply to: intrepid

I don't get the "God given rights" thing. We're these right in the same place for the Natives? Not a geographical thing? Given to whom then? Not Natives? Rich, white men? No one else had rights then. Not even poor white men. Well, they could vote. That's about it.

Me neither

The ability to deny people freedoms or rights is not a right - but it is a reality

What we're talking about in this thread is the freedom to think - and change our thinking - then change our laws to reflect that. Together

God given - yeah, right

a reply to: introvert

TOO bad, we took an oath and they haven't absolved us of it so it REMAINS in place,because WE will kill for it.
WE couldn't care LESS what the HIPPIEBELT of education sh#ts out.
THAT is America, NOT Princeton or P.C. or any OTHER popular cultural movement to dismiss it.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: introvert

TOO bad, we took an oath and they haven't absolved us of it so it REMAINS in place,because WE will kill for it.
WE couldn't care LESS what the HIPPIEBELT of education sh#ts out.
THAT is America, NOT Princeton or P.C. or any OTHER popular cultural movement to dismiss it.

So only YOUR version of America matters?