We need to stop appointing attorneys to SCOTUS....

I didn't say they were.

But the AG is prosecuting cases and defending cases against the United States on behalf of the US President.

 

I gave you the meaning. Are you complaining because you have to read what I wrote?

My God!

As for Scalia, I'm not arguing the case. I'm just arguing that he was not an originalist. Period! Legally... maybe he's right... maybe he's wrong. My one and only point is that his arguments are not originalist arguments. Specifically his linguistic arguments. Which are a large part. They are made up nonsense.

Anyway, you jumped into the discussion and have been struggling to change the subject since then. Good luck with that. I'm just not interested. I have proven my case to those who are familiar with the case. Why should I bother making it to somebody who isn't and refuses to become familiar with it?

 

You really don't know how the SCOTUS works. Judgments from the lower courts are based in law and wouldn't reach the Supreme Court unless they couldn't agree.

 

The correct statement should read:

We need to stop putting people in SCOTUS who interpret the Constitution, and start putting more who apply it as written.

SCOTUS granted itself the power to interpret the Constitution in Marbury v Madison (1803), in clear violation of the 10th Amendment since Article III grants no such power to the judiciary. They did this under pretext of judicial review. Judicial review however, consists of interpreting laws for constitutional compliance, which is the rightful job of SCOTUS. The Constitution is the standard (the Supreme Law of the Land by its own mandate) and all laws must conform to it, it's not the other way around. SCOTUS wanted the power to interpret the Constitution in order to make certain laws fit the Constitution via any convolution they thought would make sense or reject certain laws they didn't like even when clearly compliant. They have effectively granted themselves the power to create law (which they call "case law") and amend the Constitution at will.

The original 13th Amendment (the Title of Nobility Amendment) which was properly ratified prior to the Civil War according to historians, would have barred all attorneys from federal government positions since they have the title of Esquire, a title of nobility. Imagine that, no attorneys anywhere in the US government.

 

Editing my reply makes it impossible to have discussions with you. If you can't articulate your argument, maybe one of the people who you think you've proven your case could respond, but it's pointless for you to respond since either you don't understand how to explain it, or can't or never thought you would ever have to explain it.

 

Why? You have problems remembering what you yourself wrote?

And respond they did.

You, on the other hand, didn't even start. I understand. It's above your "paygrade".

Thanks for trying anyway. That's just an idiomatic expression. Actually you didn't give it much of a try.

 

No, they did not respond. I hope they do however since you're not capable of framing an argument. Smarter people than you are your only hope!

 

Seems to me they should all have to have been judges.

 

There are no less than 7 or 8 threads on the forum in which I discussed this. Oh... they responded alright.

Absolutely! It's from people smarter than me that I learn. No hope of learning anything from you, of course. All you can do is hope somebody smarter than me comes along one day. And they have, BTW. Many of them. Only problem is that they tend to agree with me.

Keep praying though...

 

Well I'm here waiting for my originalism tutorial.