Nice Read on Anthony Kennedy

[JoeBags7277 734]

I'm torn on who my favorite justice is- Kennedy or Clarence Thomas.

http://rare.us/story/the-swing-vote-on-the-supreme-court-is-actually-a-libertarian/

[cooltigger21 0]

Kennedy is something, not sure what. Following the constitution isn't his thing. He just makes it up as he goes along, sometimes out of whole cloth.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Kennedy is something, not sure what. Following the constitution isn't his thing. He just makes it up as he goes along, sometimes out of whole cloth.

Says the Constitutional scholar.

[homersapien 11,354]

Clarence Thomas? Seriously?

[JoeBags7277 734]

Clarence Thomas? Seriously?

Yes.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Kennedy is something, not sure what. Following the constitution isn't his thing. He just makes it up as he goes along, sometimes out of whole cloth.

" Gossamer thin" is how his I've heard some explain Kenedys basis on his rulings in relation to the constitution.

[homersapien 11,354]

Clarence Thomas? Seriously?

Yes.

That guy has serious issues IMO (along with many others).

The latest revelation - in this latest decision I believe - was his statement that slavery was no threat to human dignity. (paraphrased)

[AURaptor 1,121]

Paraphrased ?

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

[homersapien 11,354]

Paraphrased ?

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Paraphrased ?

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Paraphrased ?

:roflol:/>

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

A bit semantical. Slavery clearly demeans people and governments that allow and protect the practice are complicit.

[japantiger 4,051]

It's only semantical if you don't take the words for their clear meaning...he said dignity; not demean. Sort of like when the supreme court says by the states doesn't really mean by the states anymore...

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Paraphrased ?

:roflol:/>

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away." (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

A bit semantical. Slavery clearly demeans people and governments that allow and protect the practice are complicit.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Perhaps someone should ask Thomas to expound on this point as to what distinction he is making. Here is the passage in fuller context:

Perhaps recognizing that these cases do not actually involve liberty as it has been understood, the majority goes to great lengths to assert that its decision will advance the “dignity” of same-sex couples. Ante, at 3, 13, 26, 28.8 The flaw in that reasoning, of course, is that the Constitution contains no “dignity” Clause, and even if itdid, the government would be incapable of bestowing dignity.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved.Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

The majority’s musings are thus deeply misguided, but at least those musings can have no effect on the dignity of the persons the majority demeans. Its mischaracterization of the arguments presented by the States and their amici can have no effect on the dignity of those litigants. Its rejection of laws preserving the traditional definition of marriage can have no effect on the dignity of the people who voted for them. Its invalidation of those laws can have no effect on the dignity of the people who continue to adhere to the traditional definition of marriage. And its disdain for the understandings of liberty and dignity upon which this Nation was founded can have no effect on the dignity of Americans who continue to believe in them.

Our Constitution—like the Declaration of Independence before it—was predicated on a simple truth: One’s liberty, not to mention one’s dignity, was something to be shielded from—not provided by—the State. Today’s decision casts that truth aside. In its haste to reach a desired result, the majority misapplies a clause focused on “due process” to afford substantive rights, disregards the most plausible understanding of the “liberty” protected by that clause, and distorts the principles on which this Nation was founded. Its decision will have inestimable consequences for our Constitution and our society. I respectfully dissent.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Paraphrased ?

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

Post # 33, genius.

[homersapien 11,354]

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

http://www.supremeco...14-556_3204.pdf

[JoeBags7277 734]

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

http://www.supremeco...14-556_3204.pdf

One's dignity is not dependent on his government acknowledging it. Rise up, and demand what is rightfully yours. Get up, stand up. What's so awful about that?

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal” and “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

http://www.supremeco...14-556_3204.pdf

One's dignity is not dependent on his government acknowledging it. Rise up, and demand what is rightfully yours. Get up, stand up. What's so awful about that?

Says the man who has never been enslaved.

[JoeBags7277 734]

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away." (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

http://www.supremeco...14-556_3204.pdf

One's dignity is not dependent on his government acknowledging it. Rise up, and demand what is rightfully yours. Get up, stand up. What's so awful about that?

Says the man who has never been enslaved.

The error in Thomas's comments, if there are any, is that they were uttered in such a manner that his opponents could easily take them to mean whatever they want them to. What I take from them, and what I believe Thomas meant, was that government is not nearly omnipotent enough to confer or deny a man's dignity. Those who believe otherwise scare the bejeezus out of me.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away." (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

http://www.supremeco...14-556_3204.pdf

One's dignity is not dependent on his government acknowledging it. Rise up, and demand what is rightfully yours. Get up, stand up. What's so awful about that?

Says the man who has never been enslaved.

The error in Thomas's comments, if there are any, is that they were uttered in such a manner that his opponents could easily take them to mean whatever they want them to. What I take from them, and what I believe Thomas meant, was that government is not nearly omnipotent enough to confer or deny a man's dignity. Those who believe otherwise scare the bejeezus out of me.

You're engaging in an academic exercise because you've never lived under a government that authorized one person to own another. You can pontificate all day long, but you can't wrap your brain around being born into slavery.

[homersapien 11,354]

Paraphrased ?

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

Post # 33, genius.

I don't see the connection.

I think it is appropriate (honest) to note you are paraphrasing if you are relating what someone said without actually quoting them.

[homersapien 11,354]

Oh, and while I appreciate that you consider me a genius, that's a relative term regarding this forum.

If you and a few others dropped off, I would be just averagely intelligent.

[homersapien 11,354]

It's only semantical if you don't take the words for their clear meaning...he said dignity; not demean. Sort of like when the supreme court says by the states doesn't really mean by the states anymore...

The Nazi government didn't rob people of their dignity?

[homersapien 11,354]

Paraphrased ?

This from a guy who is perpetually confused on the meaning of the term " politically correct " !

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

This is pure sophistry.

Slavery robs humans of their dignity. A government who permits slavery is directly complicit in denying dignity to slaves.

[homersapien 11,354]

Sorry, I don't get your point.

I paraphrased what Thomas said. (Didn't feel like looking it up.)

I have no idea what the PC bit is about.

He didn't say that. This was the relevant portion (which Vox and other left wingers mischaracterized):

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away." (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

Human dignity has long been understood in this country to be innate. When the Framers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" and "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," they referred to a vision of mankind in which all humans are created in the image of God and therefore of inherent worth. That vision is the foundation upon which this Nation was built.

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.

http://www.supremeco...14-556_3204.pdf

One's dignity is not dependent on his government acknowledging it. Rise up, and demand what is rightfully yours. Get up, stand up. What's so awful about that?

Says the man who has never been enslaved.

The error in Thomas's comments, if there are any, is that they were uttered in such a manner that his opponents could easily take them to mean whatever they want them to. What I take from them, and what I believe Thomas meant, was that government is not nearly omnipotent enough to confer or deny a man's dignity. Those who believe otherwise scare the bejeezus out of me.

One would think that a SCOTUS justice would be a little more thoughtful, huh?

And for the sake of debate, the Confederate government was totally capable of "denying a man's dignity". Just as with the Nazi government.

[homersapien 11,354]

The corollary of that principle is that human dignity cannot be taken away by the government. Slaves did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved. Those held in internment camps did not lose their dignity because the government confined them. And those denied governmental benefits certainly do not lose their dignity because the government denies them those benefits. The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” (emphasis mine)

The last line is the key. Now one can still disagree with it, but he did not say slavery was no threat to human dignity. His point was that the government does not bestow dignity, therefore it cannot take it away.

And his point was wrong.