The Supreme Court

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee The Supreme Court

Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1872682
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The Supreme Court’s new ruling about the Constitution proves why we need an oral law. They just interpreted it according to its written understanding and not through its intended interpretation. The Chazal gives us this interpretation in the written words of the Torah.

    #1872716
    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    What?

    Are you equating Torah from Hkbh to the constitution which was made by בשר ודם, גוים no-less

    #1872767
    Joseph
    Participant

    It depends on the weather. The SCOTUS oftentimes invents its own “Oral Law” when it suits the liberal establishment they seek to serve. For example, nothing written in the Constitution remotely says or even implies abortion must be legal. (This is, but, one example of many available.) Nevertheless, when the left-wing “Justices” decided they wanted such a law, despite their not being elected to Congress which is constitutionally empowered to write laws, they simply decreed it by dreaming it up as Oral Law.

    Justice Antonin Scalia warned about all this when he insisted upon strict constructionism, ruling based on the Constitution’s original meaning, rather than a so-called notion of an “everchanging Constitution” that allows every leftist judge to rule whatever he wants based on his feelings of what he dreams the Constitution should mean today, not what the authors of the Constitution (and statues, for that matter) intended when writing the laws.

    #1872797
    Pekak
    Participant

    RebEliezer is a liberal and he prefers to view the constitution in the same way that I view the Torah.

    #1872796
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    The Rabbenu Bachya in Parashas Ki Siso compares the Oral Law to a father who wrote a letter to his son telling in it to follow certain commands and thge rewards gained by it. He was afraid that it might fall in the wrong hands, so he left out certain conditions that he will pass on orally, Similarly, Hashem gave the interpretations of the letter the written Torah orally.

    The Chasam Sofer has a different mashel quoted by his son the Kasav Sofer in Parashas Yisro. A father had multiple children and he has a goldmine that he wanted the youngest child to inherit. He does not want to create jealousy by just giving it to him, so he teaches his youngest child the act of gold mining and then he divides the goldmine equally. Since the others don’t know what to do with it, it automatically falls to the youngest child. The Written Torah is like a goldmine and the Oral Law is the act of gold mining. We get the shown the act of gold mining, so we know how to interpret the Written Law when given to us, which the other nations are missing, so they don’t know how to use it and therefore they are unwilling to accept.

    #1872811
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Your conservative judge Gorsuch interpreted it giving rights to toiva. He did not interpreted as intended but as written.
    As you see above we have a right to understand what the purpose of the Oral Law is. It also gives us an extended understanding to no end, yagdil Torah vyaadir whereas the written law is fixed.
    As a liberal, I don’t think the Constitution was properly interpreted over here. You don’t squeeze into it an interpretation which was not intended by Congress.

    #1872807
    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Joseph
    “Justice Antonin Scalia warned about all this when he insisted upon strict constructionism, ruling based on the Constitution’s original meaning”

    Scalia was no different. He expanded the definition of “arms” in the second amendment when it suited him (see Heller) He suddenly opposed States rights in Bush V Gore. He expanded free speech to corporations When clearly none of these were the “constitutions’ original meaning”

    #1872833
    charliehall
    Participant

    Absolutely. Alito, dissenting today, made up law from nothing in the Hobby Lobby case, when he gave religious rights to corporations based on the religion of their owners. This overturned hundreds of years of established precedent that a corporation’s identity has nothing to do with that of the owners. This is a far bigger deal than today’s decision which was a narrow one based on the meaning of a statute.

    Your point about the Second Amendment is also well taken. The people who improperly claim that it was originally about individual rights to gun ownership are ignorant about 18th century US history. Colonial governors repeatedly interfered with militias in the colonies, as had the British monarchs in Britain itself — in fact the very last time in history that a British monarch vetoed a law passed by parliament was Queen Anne’s veto of the law allowing Scotland to set up a militia in 1708! No less a figure than the late Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in the 1980s that the Constitution provided no right to own firearms.

    But conservatives actually love this kind of judicial activism as long as it suits their own political ends. The trouble it, they get burned when they lose, like today, and get exposed as hypocrites.

    #1872834
    charliehall
    Participant

    Not getting as much notice today was that the Court refused to hear Trump’s challenge to California’s Sanctuary law, under which the State refuses to cooperate with Federal immigration enforcement activities. This is another example of the hypocrisy of conservatives, as the right of states to refuse to have their police agencies commandeered into enforcing federal law has been well respected ever since the Tenth Amendment was passed in the 1790s. But Trump doesn’t care about the Constitution. In this case the Court refused to be Judicial Activists even though the Trump Administration wanted it to be.

    Interestingly, there is nothing in the Constitution that explicitly gives the federal government the power to restrict immigration, only to regulate naturalization. The Founding Fathers would never have imagined the racist national origins quota system, but the courts upheld it anyway.

    #1872846
    akuperma
    Participant

    Actually the United States has an “oral law” system. It is very flexible. The ‘Common law”, like Halakah evolves by scholars and judges addressing situations as they change. The Romans had a written system reliant on the boss making rules whenever he felt like. If you tried to reinact living as we did 2000 years ago you would realize how are flexible oral system, like the American common law system, works in our benefit.

    If you followed the original text of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, as an example, gun ownership would be dependent on willingness to serve in the militia and report regularly for training (and to fight war, and more often, suppress riots). The clear understanding when the Constitution was adopted was that non-Christians would have minimal rights under state law unless the state wanted them to (by the Jacksonian era, they all had). None of the civil rights that enable American Jews to be comfortably middle class would exist if the Constitution was interpreted as it was in 1789 (of the14th amendment at the time it was adopted).

    #1872957
    Avi K
    Participant

    RE, if you are referring to the toeva ruling it had nothing to do with Constitutional Law. It was an interpretation of a law passed by the Congress and signed by POTUS. Justice Gorsuch said that he personally thinks that it is a bad law but he has no choice but to affirm that it says what it says. If you are interested in reading a complete report google “HOW JUDGE GORSUCH JUDGES” on the website of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (which is a conservative organization).

    Akuperma, FYI the 14th Amendment was subsequently adopted. The accepted interpretation of the “Due Process” clause is what is called “substantive due process” – certain rights, in particular those in the Bill of Rights, are protected from government interference. The “Equal Protection” clause prevents states form improperly discriminating against classes of citizens. What is proper (e.g. a minimum age for driving) and what is not (e.g. a religious test for public office) is a matter of judge-made law although they look at social norms in their generation (thus Brown vs Board of Education overturned Plessy vs. Ferguson). This actually is a continuation of the English Common Law system, which is analogous (l’havdil) to our responsa literature. This contrasts with the Civil Law system of the Continent where law is strictly defined by codes. In American law schools the main point of study remains the case law system. civil law

    #1873355
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Not really sure what everyone is talking about. This reading of the law forces people to act normally. Do not discriminate against your employee for things that do not affect your business. And your employee has to act normal, because anything that either gender could be fired for, he/she/it can be fired for too. CJ Roberts is setting up a legal basis for people to be obligated to a human standard, no matter how they self identify.

    #1873421
    Joseph
    Participant

    N0m: I’m glad you agree that if an employee expresses deep racism and xenophobia off-hours, off premises, on his own time on social media and in public, the employee should not penalize him for doing things that don’t impede the employees ability to do his daily job.

    #1873442
    Avi K
    Participant

    Joseph, if an employee expresses deep racism and xenophobia off-hours, off premises, on his own time on social media and in public and it becomes to known to fellow employees it could create workplace issues. As people might boycott the business (which they really should not do, but people do many things they should not), This is why rechilut is such a severe sin.

    #1873511
    som1
    Participant

    reb eliezer-“Your conservative judge Gorsuch interpreted it giving rights to toiva.”
    exactly he betrayed the conservatives and sided with the leftist liberals! but you should be happy because your a leftist and he sided with you!!

    #1873516
    Joseph
    Participant

    Avi, people may and do boycott businesses that employ open homosexuals.

    #1873519
    som1
    Participant

    nomesorah-” CJ Roberts is setting up a legal basis for people to be obligated to a human standard, no matter how they self identify.”
    thats not the supreme courts job their not legislators!! their job is to interpret the law and any reasonable person knows that the 1964 federal law banning employment discrimination based on race/color/religion/gender does not refer to lgbtq
    gorsuch is a traitor!!

    #1873538
    Gadolhadorah
    Participant

    Don’t underestimate how Gorsuch’s opinion, aside from his obvious effort to demonstrate “consistency” in his textual approach to legal interpretation, will also help tee up a future effort to further narrow so-called
    Chevron deference”, in terms of how the Courts defer to agency interpretations of statute based on their assumed subject matter “expertise”, where the statute fails to provide detailed guidance on implementation.

    #1873592
    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Sam1, I am a liberal because I want protection for the Jews as for others but I don’t want an interpretatiion that Congress did not intend as I wrote before.

    #1873876
    som1
    Participant

    reb eliezer- “I am a liberal because I want protection for the Jews as for others”
    voting in anti Semitic oboma’s vice isn’t going to accomplish that goal of yours! in fact quite the opposite
    I don’t want an interpretation that Congress did not intend as I wrote before.”
    you side with the conservatives on that!!

    #1873902
    SchnitzelBigot
    Participant

    According to Gorsuch’s flawed Office Xmas Party sevarah, if I show up to work wearing blackface and get fired, can I sue them because had I been Black they wouldn’t have cared?

    #1874528
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Som,
    It is definitely not the legislators job to guide the nations culture. It is the job of the clergy (Totally absent.) cultural icons (Make to much money.) and educators (HA!). But I do not get you. You want them to be able to act however they feel like and claim that is their ‘identity’? Why is it an affront to you if they do not get fired?

    #1874546
    som1
    Participant

    n0mesorah- where did you get this stupid idea from that i “want them to be able to act however they feel like and claim that is their ‘identity’? Why is it an affront to you if they do not get fired?” if you read my posts i said and proved the opposite!! i dont how you got that idea into your head

    #1876114
    charliehall
    Participant

    Among the Justices voting in the majority on the 1973 abortion case were Warren Burger and Lewis Powell, whom nobody would call liberals. It was a blow for limited government.

    #1876157
    Yoel Biden
    Participant

    In 2004 Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the first Supreme Court Justice blah blah blah………. nobody cares about this

    #1876226
    Someone in Monsey
    Participant

    It’s odd that somone could think that Gorsuch interpreted the Cvil Rights Act according to its original, textual meaning. The statute in question, written in 1964, refers to discrimination based on sex, which without question refers to biological gender. We cannot view the staute through today’s lens, but through 1964’s. There was no confusion about biological gender 56 years ago. Gorsuch forced the issue. He contended that discrimination based on sexual choice cannot be distinguished from gender – which is a facially ridiculous idea – and thus such discrimination violates the statute. According to Gorsuch, there’s no such thing as morality, apparently, only gender-by-choice.

    #1876386
    n0mesorah
    Participant

    Dear Som,
    This law puts the obligations of society back on these people. They cannot do whatever they want and claim ‘I identify like this’ or ‘I was made this way’. Anything that a man and a woman would get fired for, they could also be. This should be precedent for many bizarre legal battles that are coming out. A cornerstone of normalcy was finally set down. Be happy about it. I think one day it will overturn same ex marriage.

Viewing 27 posts - 1 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.