.
.
.
This just in from Orange Juice friend, attorney Jonathan Adler, who has been organizing UCI Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky’s hugely successful and popular series of lectures at Laguna Woods:
Sep 6 Tuesday noon-2pm, Laguna Woods:
Erwin Chemerinsky: The Conservative Assault On The Constitution:
talk to Concerned Citizens, after Noon-to-12:45 book sales, pre-order pickups, and book-signing.
Clubhouse 1, 24232 Calle Aragon, Laguna Woods, CA 92637
Quoted above is both his latest book’s name and his talk’s title.
Is it true, or right-wing spin, or pure myth, that the Supreme Court’s conservative wing decides cases as mere “umpires”, just strictly calling Constitutional “balls and strikes” (as Roberts told his Senate confirmation hearing), with no political agenda, loyal to the Framers’ intent and precedent, while its moderates are the ones trying to enact personal liberal agendas, stretching the Constitution and twisting precedent?
If that’s a myth, can you explain why?
You’ll do so better after attending this talk, better still after reading the new book, by Erwin Chemerinsky – UCI Law School founding Dean and Distinguished Prof. of Law, leading Constitutional scholar; litigator in the Supreme Court and other courts; author of books and articles for scholars and lay readers; and frequent analyst of that Court, its cases and trends, on TV and radio.
In his talk, he’ll discuss how our Constitution touches all of us; how to reclaim it; and recent rulings that “close courthouse doors,” mix church and state, and limit voting rights, fair elections, and democracy itself.
Guests $3, Concerned Citizens members free. You can buy his book before his talk, for $18 ($9 off cover/retail price); Easiest (and helping reduce the rush) is to pre-order his book by mail: He’ll inscribe and sign it in advance (the Order Form has a line to write the words to be inscribed). You can pick it up before his talk (and still “meet & greet & chat” with him), while we reserve a good seat(s) for you. August 31 is the deadline to mail pre-orders. Click here for our mail-in Order Form on the Event Flyer and Gate Entry Pass Click here for GoogleMap Click here for Directions. More details or Info: Jonathan Adler, LawGuruLaguna@yahoo.com, or 949-581-2178.
Love the guy. Most people, of course, can’t name a member of the Supreme Court but do know who’s ahead on American Idol
This guy is a dangerous liberal idiot and he like the rest of his communist nut heads are the reason the courts are now a threat to the very fabric of this country!
You haven’t been following the Supreme Court very much, have you? You know, the continually pro corporate interests at any cost Roberts Court? I dislike invective, but really, the only dangerous idiot here is you.
Why can’t people use their bloody names if they actually can stand by what they write….Rapscallion? Whats that mean? you’re a peter pan type?
Yes, I follow the Supreme Court. I also know all about the elitist idiot that is now the Dean at UCI Law School. The same one that was nearly kicked out because he is a whack job liberal. He believes like most stupid liberals that empathy trumps actual law. That empathy, instead of following the law is more important. The same social justice idiot, that often speaks about the injustice of whites having more than people of color. The same idiot that actually is most likely instilling dangerous marxist ideas into the heads of young minds! He is an idiot and the reason that many coming out of the laws schools today are a direct threat to this countries constitution. He believes that the constitution is a living breathing document; other words, it needs to be changed when and where ever possible. I would rather have the corporations who hire millions gain something from the Supreme court, using written law, than have a activist scumbag with a law degree use the Supreme Count to abuse the Law…which of course is what happens in California all the time. He is a dangerous idiot and we need to get him out of UCI.
Note to the peanut gallery: does anyone know if “Michelle Quinn” is this commenter’s real name, given how important she asserts that to be, or did she just nick it from a reporter on Politico?
By the way, as a constitutional originalist, do you think that the Framers intend for you, as a woman, to express opinions about public affairs? Maybe that “living document” has something to it, eh?
JAJAJA – Diamond’s turn to take on the Mighty Quinn.
I’ve not seen nothing like it. Double negative intended, pace Dylan.
Ah, Mr. Diamond, if I sound like a reporter from politico (my writing must be getting better:) You sound like you have that silver spoon well up there in neverland:0)
And I am AKA…MICHELLE QUINN
Oh, as a CONSTITUTIONAL ORIGINALIST; how fancy you are Mr. Diamond. Well, in my NOBLE and lowly opinion, since women back in the framers time were not exactly mouthy like me, and today especially in the West women see them selves not only equal, but in most cases superior to men, then all men are equal (well not really if we are talking about intellect) applies to women as well.
But Erwin believes ( FYI>just as the Catholic Church does) in Social Justice and he believes that social justice should be applied to amendments in the constitution, then I would say that the framers would roll in their gave’s to have the ideas of “take according to their abilities and give to them according to their needs” MARX
The constitution is not a living document, but a document to follow as intended by the framers. The framers also gave the PEOPLE the power to have their repre’s in state and federal government change laws by the vote. They did NOT give activists/liberal judges the right to go against the people in the court room. Mr. Erwin believes that the document is flawed and needs to be fixed. Most Americans believe that the document is the foundation of this country and to change it, would be a grave mistake!
The difference is that Erwin is just one of many socialist, communists, marxists with a law degree and that is very dangerous for this country and its young minds.
Mr. Erwin wears a red coat!
Before getting the the Constitution, do you know that a contract is a “living document” — that is, you have to figure out how it applies in novel and changing circumstances? That is what the Framers (and Ratifiers) intended; see, for example, the Ninth Amendment.
Your saying that the Constitution simply locked in the values of conservatism — except, of course, that the Founders imagined nothing like our present corporate forms? Are they “unconstitutional”?
I’d ask where you went to law school and learned all this malarky, but its seems very unlikely that you’ve ever studied law. If you had, you’d know that Citizen’s United and Free Enterprise Club are among the most judicial activist decisions of recent years. Surprise! Judicial activist does not actually mean “whatever Michelle Quinn doesn’t like.
You have the same name as someone who has written for Politico. The resemblance does not necessary go beyond that.
What do these phrases mean: “empathy instead of following the law is more important.” “instilling dangerous marxist ideas into the heads of young minds (and shouldn’t that be the other way around?)” “an activist scumbag with a law degree use the Supreme Court to abuse the law.”
That’s some serious raving there, m’aam. Want to try the usage of an actual fact? Here’s one for you–“Citizens United”–a blatantly activist decision, but for the right side–yours!
Is somebody standing out on the edge of the Orange Juice, overlooking the dark ravine, and calling out for the Banshee to return?
You will likely regret this, Rapscallion.
I will give Rapo a break, I am feeling empathetic today, but fear not, I am not a liberal judge, I won’t be letting some serial killer go today, cause his mama, beat him with a big sad face spoon!!!!
🙂
So youre declaring victory and fleeing, I see. Anytime you have some facts, please feel free to return.
Wow, I really don’t do think the guys an idiot..lol
Well put. potatoe head.
You are very welcome knob head.
Always a pleasure to keep the dull and the ignorant up to speed;0)
notice what happened to the ahh be nice libs after the gifford shooting blaming right wingers of course . the folks on this blog missed that story . its ok michell this guy is a far left z and like the libs and the their union goons when you have nothing CALL THEM NAMES to try and get your point across .
oh also dont forget the clown we have as pres also thinks this is a flawed document .
In my view, liberals like Chemerinsky continue to employ the term “Establishment Clause” when they refer to attempts to limit the states rather than Congress for more than mere habit or convenience. They do it for strategic reasons, to maintain the semblance that we are still talking about CONSTITUTIONAL LAW—as in, the law based on our nation’s most revered document—rather than mere decisional law—as in, the law as handed down by courts.
Proof, it would seem, that the founding document of our legal system is not just a living document, but one that’s alive and well — no bestseller list needed.
The “assault” Dean Chemerinsky derides, then, is not on the big-“C”-Constitution but the small-“c”-constitution as judicially amended and legislatively subverted by New Deal and post-New Deal thinking—that is, the constitution that says “The federal government, yes, can do most anything in this country.” Prof. Eastman describes this “clever” approach taken by Dean Chemerinsky and his liberal colleagues as follows:
[E]ach leftward evolution of the Constitution’s meaning becomes a new fixed baseline of constitutional law, and any move to return to the original meaning amounts to a repudiation not of the wayward interpretation but of the Constitution itself.
For example, not even Bill Maher defends the Democrats’ shameful politicization of the “advice and consent” process to freeze Robert Bork’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Yet Dean Chemerinsky hales it as a victory that ensured the longevity of liberal judicial amendments to the constitution, abortion being chief among them. On that topic, Dean Chemerinsky says the key question is “who would decide whether the fetus before viability is a human person: each woman for herself or the state legislature.” To this, Prof. Eastman responds:
I have never seen the Left’s position on abortion phrased quite so starkly, but it should put to rest the myth that the “progressive” view in support of a “living Constitution” is designed to advance human dignity. That anyone, individual or legislature, gets to determine the human personhood of another human being is a notion that I had thought we had buried in the ashes of the Civil War. It bears an uncanny resemblance to the claim made by slave-owners that it was their moral prerogative to determine whether blacks should be treated as property or as human beings. If “the conservative assault on the Constitution” is an assault on that proposition, then count me among the assaulters in chief.
Here’s how law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky, writing in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, sees the role of empathy in judging: “Judging, especially at the level of the Supreme Court, is not and never has been a mechanical process of applying clear rules to yield determinate answers. It is a human activity in which there is often great discretion….In exercising this discretion, justices should be mindful of the consequences of their decisions on people’s lives. That is what empathy is about, and it is hard to imagine wanting judges who lack empathy….
MQ says:
He is a 60’s idiot with a law degree. Empathy has no place in a court room. An empathetic feelings have allowed liberal judges to let child rapists go, cause they felt empathetic to their need to screw a child. It has happened one too many times in this country because liberal judges are not judges but judge and jury! Erwin is teaching law students to step into the shoes of who they judge, instead of stepping inside the victims!
Hey Potato Head, if you’re gonna copy and paste vast amounts of text onto here, you gotta at least say where it came from.
I did not my homework on the man, now its time for Rapo and yourself to do your homework.
Just click two things…RED COAT!
If you call that “homework,” you get an F. Because everybody knows you didn’t write that. You’re not pretending you did, are you? Then give credit where it’s due!
I know, I SHOULD write who its from. But of course I won’t. Cause I know Rapo is breaking his Ba*** trying to find out “WHO SAY THAT”.
lol
“Now you know why US women need to be included in “ALL MEN ARE EQUAL” well yes, but all men are not equally intelligent. No matter if it hangs or not! 🙂
Good night and God keep you all safe, I have a feeling we are in for a big earth quake!
*PLONK*
OK, there’s no point in arguing you. You’re simply an irresponsible idiot. Ta-ta.
PLONK???????
Did you not say you were well educated, a scholar of sorts!!!!!!!
It is a FACT that we have a lot, mostly of COURSE empathetic judges giving ridiculous rulings to child rape cases and my only conclusion to that is that, they must have sided with the child rapist sick and perverted reasoning for raping the child.
Give me ONE other reason, when the evidence is cut and clear that the guy did it, that he is not sent to jail for life or better yet, to castrate him!
Elementary my dear Mr. Diamond!
Your not qualified to judge when “the evidence is cut and clear.” Your paranoid and reckless writing here speaks for itself.
As for PLONK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plonk_(Usenet)
Sadly, we have no killfiles here.
I think the qualification come, when the guy pleads guilty of rape and is then let off!
Paranoid and reckless by your standards, the truth and common sense by mine!
And really, PLONK, I know without looking it up. But really, no really!!!!
Here’s what you wrote:
You don’t understand something basic, Michelle: You don’t get to recover from having written that, ever. I’ll repost that as many times as I need to. Others will probably do so as well.
Yeah, I’ll bet that you know what PLONK means.
And know you can’t recover from the fact that someone actually spoke the truth, instead of coating it with a liberal brush. I will say it a million times cause there is no other explanation other than what is obvious…..So post it, save me from having to do it!
I stand by everything I say 100%, even if I may be wrong, but in this case, I think I am right. Judges are not immune to human flaws and if a judge would allow a child rapist off with a few years in the slammer or worse yet, then we need to take a good look at the judges character. Move over, we need to see if the judge is a liberal activist judge and remove them ASAP! Child rape cases are not only the problem with liberal activist judges, overturning the will of the people is a number 1 problem, especially here in California.
Yes, as in PLONKER!
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2009/09/attorney_general_bars_clackama.html
If ya think liberal judges who let off rapists are all men, think again!
Ps. I have never run away from anything in my life, I’ve just run forward:)
RAPO
And/or this, an expanded version of the above:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/timkowal/2011/08/29/the-constitutional-conservatism-newspeak/
Here’s the source Quinn tried to pawn off as her own writing:
http://notesfrombabel.wordpress.com/tag/establishment-clause
GOOD BOY! lol
You have no idea how happy I am you even thought I wrote what you thought i might have written. I am VERY honored.
ok scholars, I am tired!
LOL. Don’t worry Quinn…I never for a moment thought that you wrote that.
Really, then why did you look it up?
LOL
So everyone could see what you stole. Duh.
As you can see at the end I wrote MQ says: DUH!
You didn’t put what you stole into quotes, nor did you give credit to the source. Saying “MQ says” in no way makes it clear that what precedes it is a quote from another source.
Double duh.
When in doubt use your common sense. The text was obviously not one single flow of thought. It’s a fact that when a kid crosses the doors of a Californian university they then become liberal drones. Not a ounce of common sense to be found. Hence the moronic population of California. JC!