Is the U.S. Constitution open to interpretation? Justice Sonia Sotomayor weighs in on the debate.
Пікірлер: 316
@MrTwodogshumping9 жыл бұрын
The Constitution is Law. It's simple as that. The Bill of Rights is the law of the land. Its not a rule book on the people. Its a rule book against the government
@killer133248 жыл бұрын
+MrTwodogshumping and the government must conform to it without question unless they can get the numbers for an amendment saying otherwise.
@johndanielson37775 жыл бұрын
let me try to break this down so you’ll understand. In our American common law tradition, we follow court cases, instead of solely relying on statutory interpretation. Constitutional interpretation isn’t easy or simple. For 200 years, the court has looked at constitutional issues that aren’t in the Constitution like slavery, segregation, affirmative action, abortion, comic books, cellphones, healthcare, etc. And if you’re a Justice dealing with a case about those issues and your main concern isn’t about its constitutionality and more about what a bunch of dead white slaveholders, then maybe you shouldn’t be a Justice. And the Constitution isn’t easy to interpret. Take the 2nd Amendment for example. It doesn’t exactly say you have an individual right to own guns, but it’s implied as Scalia says. Or the 9th Amendment that says there are rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. What did the Founders mean about that and why exactly did they right that part in? You’re so gullible if you think interpreting the Constitution is easy.
@KKuurus5 жыл бұрын
It's easy. You just have to be smarter than a piece of paper. Yes it is living because we can change it. When working in the law there is no room for I feel like. This is why Sotamayeor should not be on the Supreme court.
@yevgeniyzharinov74735 жыл бұрын
Can you do better than state the obvious?
@spencertaffet94585 жыл бұрын
@@KKuurus it's easy? LMAO
@someguy11433 жыл бұрын
One of the most activist judges in history pretending like she cares about the Constitution.
@frankricci884 жыл бұрын
Yeah she's not an originalist at all... no point in pretending. "A 'Living Constitution' judge never reaches a result they don't like." -Antonin Scalia
@keepidahogreat56874 жыл бұрын
Exactly
@keepidahogreat56873 жыл бұрын
@M Novalic you imposed your own interpretation with subjective preference. unfortunately the constitution is not black and white. The gray area alway requires subjective preference.
@keepidahogreat56873 жыл бұрын
@M Novalic living Constitution is a EXTREMELY slippery slope. Those that do not use history are imposing more values and subjectivity than original intent.
@matheuslima94453 жыл бұрын
@M Novalic if the law changes so of course the interpretation changes. But you shouldnt as judge change the law based just in your opinion.
@matheuslima94453 жыл бұрын
@M Novalic sorry. I didnt read it right
@JohnDoe-xo3lr2 жыл бұрын
She knows how she’s skirting the question. If Scalia and RBG could have a conversation about this then she’s being disingenuous.
@deltasword19943 жыл бұрын
Laws are like reading a recipe to bake a cake. You can interpret "eggs" to mean ostrich eggs. But you shouldn't be surprised when your cake comes out of the oven a soupy mess because you interpreted what kind of eggs you were supposed to use incorrectly.
@vidyanandbapat80323 жыл бұрын
All the words in legal context must be interpreted in the sense in which they are used in common parlance, unless otherwise specifically and categorically been.defined to be construed otherwise.
@vidyanandbapat80323 жыл бұрын
Hence, the word egg must be interpreted as a hen's egg and not an egg of any other animal since that's not how the word egg is used in common parlance and it hasn't been categorically defined to be construed otherwise.
@blackham7 Жыл бұрын
@@vidyanandbapat8032 2As well regulated militia clause would like to have a word with you. The Constitution should be interpreted in the historical context that the legislator would've understood a word/phrase to mean at the time of ratification. A living constitution jurisprudence is too arbitrary.
@joaobaptista53073 жыл бұрын
As soon as you declare a constitution a living document there's no purpose of even having a constitution. The whole point of a consitution is to be rigid and hard change to serve as a barrier to certain types of legislation.
@stanislausklim77943 жыл бұрын
At the same time it is somewhat vague, which allows it to stand the test of time. While it is vague, it is not living.
@kidddieahammad208911 ай бұрын
INCORRECT! Our Constitution was made to change based on needs!!!
@teddyj.319810 ай бұрын
Your description is inconsistent with the expressed intents of the framers. Ironic isn’t it
@muttn.c.86629 жыл бұрын
She did everything but answer a simple question!
@Pizzarrow9 жыл бұрын
She showed that the question wasn't simple.
@killer133248 жыл бұрын
+oddist no, it was a simple yes or no question "is the constitution a living document". The correct answer is "no" but the fact remains that she dodged it.
@Kenikex6 жыл бұрын
She did answer it, she said it in the end. It's a living document. The Constitution was written for White Males, it has to evolve. Of course, if you are a white male, you wouldn't see why it should.
@CrazyAboutVinylRecords6 жыл бұрын
Some of you people commenting here have a serious English language comprehension deficiency
@jvn35676 жыл бұрын
She answered the question beautifully. What she's saying is deep, but maybe too deep for you?
@FMmffmFM8 ай бұрын
I love reading people criticizing her,not understanding the significance of her words
@Aaron-gz5wk5 жыл бұрын
When you breath life into the consitution you effectively assure its death. The consitution is meant to be a timeless framework.
@YanraOnesja3 жыл бұрын
there is an amendment process lol
@seleleota3 жыл бұрын
Tell that to women
@YanraOnesja3 жыл бұрын
Sele Leota 19th amendment
@mickey_dbeh61053 жыл бұрын
Our Founding Fathers never expected the Constitution would last as long as it did. There's a part in the Constitution that briefly mentions that if Amendments ever fail to appropriately solve issues, it make need to be rewritten as a whole. At what point does that suggest a "timeless framework"?
@YanraOnesja3 жыл бұрын
@@mickey_dbeh6105 what article section clause?
@michaelconnors13013 жыл бұрын
What in the world did her answer mean? Yes, the Const needs to be interpreted. The question is do the "words mean what they conveyed to reasonable people at the time they were written" (a la Scalia) or are justices allowed to re-interpret them according to their own whims, changing societal norms, etc.
@relayerdave8 жыл бұрын
I can guarantee that when historians comment on this jurist, she will be at the bottom of the list. Unlike Scalia.
@jhawk32288 жыл бұрын
nail on the head!.. she's as Un-justice as they come..😕
@stevenhunter33458 жыл бұрын
+David Fleming Scalia will be remembered as a brilliant legal mind who squandered that mind on advancing an interpretative paradigm that is deeply flawed and wholly unconvincing to anyone with a working knowledge of American jurisprudential history and practice. Even among conservative legal theorists, Scalia's "originalism" is not as influential as many seem to think. So yes, he was an undeniably brilliant man with a remarkable flare for writing interesting dissents. But he will not be remembered as a justice of consequence for the Court in the long term.
@relayerdave8 жыл бұрын
+Steven Hunter Utter nonsense. "...an interpretative paradigm that is deeply flawed and wholly unconvincing to anyone with a working knowledge of American jurisprudential history and practice." Arrogant tripe. And you are the oracle of American jurisprudential history and practice? Are you a sitting appellate court judge or constitutional scholar? Have you published on these issues? If so, perhaps you can regale us with a history of the intellectual fraud that is substantive due process.
@Seraphim-Hamilton6 жыл бұрын
Whether you agree with his approach or not, I don't think you can argue it hasn't been influential. Scalia's 20+ year presence on the Court placed originalism in a position of prominence it had not been in for decades, during a time when many young judges were developing their own approach to the law. His stature among conservatives has also made originalism a much more important criterion when appointing Supreme Court Justices than it had been before. For example, does anyone believe that Donald Trump has a coherent judicial philosophy? I don't think so. Then how is it that he came to appoint an originalist to the Court? It's because Trump knew the importance of this issue within his political base. If Trump is able to appoint another Supreme Court Justice while the Republicans have a senate majority (since there is no judicial filibuster anymore), he will very likely be an originalist: a full third of the highest Court would be explicitly originalist in jurisprudence- Alito and Roberts not being quite originalist, but still very conservative.
@GGreen-yf2xk6 жыл бұрын
Hopefully, your ashes, and Trumps, will be flushed down the toilet soon.
@EdBradford8 жыл бұрын
Soto is smart, but she seems quite willing to change the obvious meanings of our founders and the words of the written law to adhere to her emotional beliefs of today's du jour views of *fair*. I'm not happy with her views as expressed in this video.
@Kenikex6 жыл бұрын
But, isn't that Constitutional in itself? Remember when the law prohibited inter-racial marriages? "Separate but not equal", etc. Oh God please, you are a white male, of course the Constitution in black and white was written for you, so you don't see why it should be interpreted as anything else.
@GGreen-yf2xk6 жыл бұрын
You're an evil Trumptard, Ed.
@johndanielson37776 жыл бұрын
It’s not a simple question
@fretbuzz596 жыл бұрын
Ed Bradford You're parroting the standard conservative falsehood that liberals are driven by emotion. Sotomayor gives logical reasons for her point of view.
@robertbarber73436 жыл бұрын
Kenni You're a racist!
@scottswisher48402 жыл бұрын
Great non answer from someone that thinks she’s the smartest person in the room
@joeflaherty46825 жыл бұрын
In other words, the law is what I say it is and 250 years of history be damned because people really like me and gosh darn it, I'm pretty special.
@johndanielson37775 жыл бұрын
You just described the conservatives on SCOTUS.
@bugbeemaine5 жыл бұрын
@John Henderson I would say that described the liberals on SCOTUS.
@JuanRodriguez-jl6ft2 жыл бұрын
This lady thinks she’s running the Mexican govt.
@tf43322 жыл бұрын
It’s about interpreting the meaning of The Constitution as written and as intended to be read by the authors and signers of the document. It’s not about interpreting current facts and how they create grey areas but instead about current facts and how they should be viewed through the same lens of Constitutional purity with the intention of preserving Liberty for ALL citizens. It’s a living document in the sense that if any form government, be it Federal or state, attempts to infringe upon natural human rights than The Constitution can be amended to prevent it and protect The People from having it happen again. It is surely not a living document for the purpose of finding new ways to infringe upon human liberty, nor is it a living document to the sense that it’s current protections can be rewritten or amended to reduce the amount of protection they provide The People. I’m am saddened to hear a SCOTUS Judge laugh at the use of history as if it his a joke. The basis of history is the purest source to find the intent of the authors. This video is true Frightening…
@tf43322 жыл бұрын
@@yellow4034 I can concede that point of the varying points of view about the authors. I can’t concede that the intent or meaning of the document changes over time without a ratified amendment. As an example. Take the 4th amendment and the Kyllo v. US and the Maryland v. King cases comparatively. The 4th protects The People from searches and seizures without a warrant specifically identifying what is to be searched and seized. It’s presumed, but not explicitly stated, that evidence of a crime must exist before a warrant can be issued and free person can be arrested. In the former, the court ruled in valor of Kyllo stating the police violated the 4th amendment through the use IR equipment mounted on planes to search homes for higher than normal heat signatures. In contrast the court ruled in favor of the state of Maryland regarding the seizure of a persons DNA and run it against cold cases files. Both case deal with the fact that law enforcement had no evidence a crime had been committed by that person as it relates to the search performed. The favorable opinion clearly violates the 4th amendment but the court justified the ruling by stating the search(DNA collection) was reasonable as a method of ID (even though they already knew who the prisoner was) and the use of that DNA evidence is unlimited in scope even if they check that DNA against crimes they had no evidence the prisoner committed. Of course I am omitting few details here but the point is the court played it a little loose with the term reasonable and the limits on government intrusion of personal privacy afforded to us by the 4th. This was done in the interest of putting one person in prison but the erosion of civil liberty is obvious. To do so purely to lower the bar on the burden proof is a great example of how words can be distorted and meanings can be reinterpreted years later. Scalia’s dissent on the Maryland v. King case is a great read if you had not read it before.
@tf43322 жыл бұрын
@@yellow4034 I am not very familiar with those case you noted And did a quick research effort. Generally speaking though, the commerce clause is an area of a lot debate over the years. In defense of my initial originalist perspective, I’d point to the original articles of confederation. They granted free reign to the states, unfettered by any central authority, as if they were independent nations. At the time, the 13 states decided to meet and discuss uniformity to inspire general prosperity amount the several states and these meetings resulted in the ratification of The Constitution in 1776. I believe the intent of the authors was to create an environment that allowed for the free flow of trade within the inter coastal water ways and enable states to conduct business their citizenship invested to conduct. They sought to achieve this by promoting cooperation between the states through equal compensation in the form uniform tariffs and taxes for certain good and services commonly traded and consumed at the time. If all states were compensated equitably than there was no impropriety or unfair capitalization or excess costs at ports of lading. This was good for the Union at a time when the states were post rev war and the nation was in its infancy. The key implication was equity for the states; not a regulatory power grab by the federal government although it did create the interstate space in which the federal government has jurisdiction. At the core of wickard v filburn is the agricultural adjustment act of 1938, the amendment to it in 1941, the government’s duty to inform, and a PSA made by the agricultural secretary. This post depression era / war time provision sought to influence the free market by regulating/limiting market supply of certain crops and penalizing farmers for excess crop production. The PSA by the secretary went against the wording of the provision and encouraged farmers to yield surplus crops by lifting they imposed penalties on surplus yield. This was in an effort to prevent food shortages post war and prevent conditions similar to the depression. The case dealt the imposition of the penalties against Filburn after they were suspended via that PSA. The court ruled the PSA superseded the written legislation and government could not impose penalties on an annual crop surplus it encourage farmers to grow. So it was not so much a case of what authority the federal government had but more a case post facto penalties. Basically ruling the government can’t speak out of the both sides of their mouth. Gonzales v Raich is a great example of lose interpretation of federal authority granted by the commerce clause in the effort of making it easier for government to enforce criminal law and prosecution. On the one hand marijuana is federally illegal and on the other is legal in the state of California. Who’s law is supreme? If you ask me, in strict interpretation of the intent of the commerce clause influence state prosperity, I’d say the states law on the matter is supreme. It’s not until that state tries to export marijuana could the federal government step in and say it now falls within its jurisdiction and subject to seizure.
@tf43322 жыл бұрын
@@yellow4034 Explicit power to regulate drugs: IMO the sole regulatory realm of drugs and drug use is primarily based on public safety concerns and not directly related to authority granted to the government by the governed (especially at a federal level). That end is better served if regulated by separate body for the purpose of consumer safety in so far as it relates doses or purity standards type of issues. The regulation of certain class drugs, for the preservation of state sovereignty, would be best handled at the state level as it relates to production and sale within the state exclusively. Only the trade of those substance, from or into the states, may be regulated by the federal authority to the extent of tariffs or taxes, to fund the federal budget, and for the purpose of ensuring equity among states. 14th amendment - All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Brown v Board case was an excellent case and the SCOTUS decided correctly. The board’s policy of segregation absolutely violated the equal protections clause. No new amendment is necessary because the language is clear: “all persons born or naturalized in the United States”. There is no ambiguity. In fact, the state of Kansas action and district court of Kansas’ decision is a prime example of deliberately misinterpreting of The Constitution to push personal ideology. The SCOTUS has a job to uphold and protect the Constitution as it was written and intended; which is to say limit the authority of a central government and to protect the sovereignty of states and the liberty of citizens. Their job is NOT to devise or linguistically create grey areas in an effort of expanding Federal authority, eroding state sovereignty, stripping livery from the people or otherwise discriminating against free and legal citizens of the United States.
@alejandrogonzales7432 жыл бұрын
@@tf4332 you're both clowns
@ericwyatt15012 жыл бұрын
That is simply not true, because the original lens had non-voting women, slavery, 1/4 the size of the country, guns that didn't spray quickly...I can keep going all day.
@objectivereality13923 жыл бұрын
The whole point of having laws is that they *DON'T* change merely because of the "new facts" of a case. If you're going to slightly adjust the laws to fit the situation, then why have laws to begin with? Why not just make it up as you go along (which is pretty much what non-originalists do).
@ashesmandalay17623 жыл бұрын
(that's what we do and that's what judges are for)
@hockeyfan1319932 жыл бұрын
you're entirely missing her point
@1974jrod2 жыл бұрын
Only by the grace of God does this country continue to march forward.
@happyraccoon47913 жыл бұрын
She obfuscated because she knows a living constitution is the covet means getting of political authority in national politics
@hockeyfan1319932 жыл бұрын
care for an update on this statement?
@austingoyne30392 жыл бұрын
And yet this conservative majority is using originalism to do exactly that.
@Wydeedo2 жыл бұрын
This was an excellent answer by an excellent jurist. Justice Sotomayor (as well as all Justices) very well knows that the text and history aren’t enough to answer most questions of today. Saying we must look to such sources ALONE as a matter of Constitutional interpretation is an activist/political maneuver AND itself is not mandated by the Constitution.
@toonzboss2 жыл бұрын
Really? Her example of quartering troops was absolutely horrible and in no way shape or form addresses the true fallacy of the “living Constitution”!! Good God give me a break!! The Constitution is dead as a door nail, it means what it means nothing more!!
@thebookwasbetter36502 жыл бұрын
There's a huge jump between interpreting the law and just making up rights that did not exist because you don't want to wait around for congress to grant them.
@MediaBuster6 жыл бұрын
She didn’t answer the question. He asked if it was a LIVING document meaning it changes all the time. She answered that certain things needed to be confirmed or clarified.
@masterquan4891 Жыл бұрын
She is a Federalist! Trying to give almighty power to the Federal Government; We the people are Anti-Federalist, we don't want the government involved in every aspect of our lives with laws. Many of the framers were afraid of this from the beginning they wanted limited government and powers should fall to the states. All people are much happier when those in power leave us to our own lawful pursuits without pushing viewpoints we don't agree with, again limited government was the intent. We broke from England for this very purpose, not be ruled over by Kings and Queens, which in history shows most to be totalitarian or destructive in nature. The document was designed to to limit power for each branch of government and to not get involved in to many state and local issues. Looks like they continue to try to accumulate more power for the federal government to bypass citizens rights. Only one party wants full power over everything, which leads to tyranny, so then they can push for socialism which leads to suffering of We the People. No more changes are needed for the constitution it is not a living document to be played with like a child. Brilliant men created the document, many were scholars in many languages and disciplines of Science, and philosophy as well, she really doesn't have a understanding of the ratification of all parts nor how it fits into We the Peoples lives. I have found many of the views on the Supreme Court to be very bias or just downright rancid, against the Constitution itself as well as We the people. Some don't believe our system is the best, RBG, and have said so while in other counties, which is why it is good she it gone, if you are to sit on the highest court you should love the Constitution, if not you shouldn't be on the court.
@JudgeCraven Жыл бұрын
She has said absolutely nothing of substance in this 2 1/2 minute clip and her response is bafflingly meaningless.
@maurygoldblat89822 жыл бұрын
This is not the right person to ask
@hlysnan64182 жыл бұрын
New facts such as: "I am on the Court, now!"
@mr.wrongthink.13252 жыл бұрын
Sotomayor... The stench on the bench.
@stormcop556 жыл бұрын
The constitution is NOT a living document ....... it is the guide our Founding Fathers left us and should be interpreted exactly the way it was when written! If you want to change or "evolve" ........ make a law ........ that is how you make "change" ..... The first amendment (which was written a few years AFTER the constitution was written) says "Congress shall make no law ....." .... they knew change should be made by passing laws ............
@Happy239139 ай бұрын
Tell that to Supreme Court Justice John Marshall, when He established the Power of Judicial Review in Marbury v. Madison …
@hoagied37833 жыл бұрын
It means what it meant to those who wrote it at the time they wrote it. Changing the meaning of the words effectively turns Justices into unelected lawmakers with lifetime appointments. This is exactly what our founders warned against. If you want to change something, let congress do it. The world misses Scalia.
@jonathanpolston43723 жыл бұрын
It’s not that simple
@hoagied37833 жыл бұрын
@@jonathanpolston4372 please explain how what I’ve just said is incorrect.
@ftr8412 жыл бұрын
@@hoagied3783 originalism is simply an excuse to justify 18th century bigotry in todays world. Its effectively saying "well gay rights arent mentioned in the constituition therefore I can deny gay people rights I take for granted."
@94XJ10 ай бұрын
The very fact the constitution includes amendments shows it's a living document. 4 years after ratification, amendments were already being made. It wasn't until 1951 that the constitution was amended to limit how many terms a president can serve! In 1971 the constitution was amended that no citizen over 18 can be denied the right to vote based on their age. In 1992 it was amended to prevent congress from raising their own salaries instantly but instead requiring the pay change take effect at the start of the congress. Point being - things happen over time that the founding fathers couldn't have possibly foreseen. Like I said, 4 years after the initial constitution they already had to make amendments. Citing your first amendment right to freedom of speech is literally citing "the first change to the US constitution"
@whatitisnt82705 жыл бұрын
"First they steal the words then they steal the meaning".Help me out who said it.
@cosuinofdeath2 жыл бұрын
Idk Orwell
@jcost201211 жыл бұрын
See BS
@bladeboysfv564610 ай бұрын
I'm pretty sure when you were a child you learned the word seizure and search and unreasonable since they've had definitions for quite some time before this country even existed yet the Supreme Court somehow feels they have the right to change definitions of words like the ATF did come on
@WinkWinkNodNod11 жыл бұрын
Oh god. "What does unreasonable mean?"... "What's a search and seizure?" Well ill tell ya. An unreasonable search is you checking my bunghole for a plant. And seizure is when you take my shit(whether you return it or not, it is seizure). "Living constitution is a word with no meaning"...BUT CORPORATIONS ARE PEOPLE?! We have really flipped upside down.
@stanislausklim77943 жыл бұрын
I think SCOTUS made the wrong decision regarding faithless electors. While state legislatures appoint the electors, at the end of the day, it's the electors' ultimate choice, not the legislatures of who to vote for Pres and VP.
@onielrodriguez91942 жыл бұрын
In other words elections would have no meaning or purpose since electors are being given that power directly.
@JR-ez3zd2 жыл бұрын
Why in the world is she doing as a Supreme Court Judge when she has no idea what she is doing, where did she go to learn about law?! How is it that she is qualified to be Judge in the highest court much less a Lawyer?!
@markarmage37762 жыл бұрын
She's not. At least in the traditional sense. Clinton and Obama paved the way to radicals like her to be put on the Court. Insane people who refuses to answer the question the debunk their entire theory. And we have to stop that insane movement.
@warriorhealth21726 жыл бұрын
so... you didn't answer the question. typical.
@markarmage37764 жыл бұрын
This is absurd. It's one thing to interpret the lawmakers intention to expand the meaning of the document to the fullest. It's another thing to just ignore everything and makes things up as you go using the justification of "it can change". Facts are presented to you through the matter of the last century shall no be consistent with the facts that were supposed to used when the law is written. That kind of thinking means that if the previous court make the wrong call, you can argue against that wrong call, you should not do that because the wrong call should be accepted as fact.
@dupersdelight77975 жыл бұрын
The tell is in her explanation of "asking" to quarter troops. Asking is not a problem, force is the problem.
@miked51062 жыл бұрын
And no they can't if the homeowner says NO! Can't she even read?
@keepidahogreat56874 жыл бұрын
The least about of subjectivity the better. Objective truth is what is needed when reading the Constitution.
@MarzanWorldwide6 жыл бұрын
Search- try to find something by looking or otherwise seeking carefully and thoroughly.
@MultiSubjector3 жыл бұрын
The answer is yes, Sotomayor believes in a living Constitution. Right when she said "interpreting *new* facts to an established law that in part has been given meaning and precedent" did the theory of a living Constitution stand out. Or, maybe I'm stretching too far?
@kylefontenot59373 жыл бұрын
Textualism and precedent are I think the two biggest roles in defining law and "living constitution" I think her answer as "I don't use those words" is simple and fair enough
@shoutingatclouds68412 жыл бұрын
The most unintelligent thing I’ve ever heard is the constitution is a living document the whole point of the constitution is to be set in time and not change. I hate it when foreigners talk about our Constitution like they understand it.
@kappa37872 жыл бұрын
@@shoutingatclouds6841 I think that it’s regrettable how you at least claim to be an American, yet have no idea how constitutions work, let alone your own.
@knockoutfever4 Жыл бұрын
Deep incompetence recognizable even back then
@RandomNamejagddjxuossn6 жыл бұрын
THANK GOD THE SC IS RIGHT LEANING!
@flatearther70132 жыл бұрын
She should be a walmart greeter
@ruthcobb10746 жыл бұрын
This person has no business being on the Supreme Court.
@johndanielson37775 жыл бұрын
Well, considering that’s she’s had more judicial experience than you and has more legal knowledge than you, I’d say that she does actually.
@joaobaptista53073 жыл бұрын
@@johndanielson3777 Your comment implies that anyone who has more judicial experience and legal knowledge than Ruth Cobb, the commenter, has business being on the supreme court, which is likely a very low bar. It would seem that you, yourself, do not think Sotomayor has much legal knowledge or judicial experience if you chose a random KZfaq commenter to compare her to.
@dorryoku9193 жыл бұрын
I really don't get how people still think the constitution is black and white. If it were, freedom of "speech" would not include burning the flag. Even Scalia agrees in part, but he doesn't like it when other judges take it too far, which is understandable. I think the opposing judicial philosophies place different weights on the literal words of the authors of the law, as they intended it, in their time VS the values that said intentions carry through time. The first requires the law be amended every so often to account for new scenarios. But if America did that, it wouldn't necessarily need scholars in the court to "interpret" the laws, and its congress will have a backlog of amendments that won't get done till kingdom come. Neither one is perfect. One method could render the courts useless and helpless in dire cases that could subject citizens to terrible fates. The other could opens the door to terrible ideas that can't be restrained by the kind of structure that the first provides. I think this is a good place to be in tbh. Gives people something to think about.
@jonathanpolston43723 жыл бұрын
I think people have an inaccurate view of the way the ‘liberal’ justices look at the law. It’s a false perception that they just frivolously change the meaning. That’s just not what they do. It’s wise to listen to their arguments and hear them out, both sides
@kylefontenot59373 жыл бұрын
@Money Stacker so which liberal interpretations are you talking about. Name cases.
@MrOdsplut2 жыл бұрын
They literally just make it up
@boedude84963 жыл бұрын
the constitution, to have any meaning at all, must be applied as the founders intended, or legally changed to fulfil a current agenda. no person that does not know and understand and support the founders opinions and intentions deserves a position on any bench, most especially the supreme court
@stanislausklim77943 жыл бұрын
There have been things in the Constitution that I don't understand why the point of or why the framers had it that way, but I've learned to accept that there's a reason they put what they put and we shouldn't veer too much off what they intended. They are better men than us. They took ideas of government that at the time were largely theoretical and put them in a constitution that is still here. That is why I accept much of what they put, even if I might not understand why it is what it is. That's also why it does kinda miff me when people act like they know better than the Framers, like with the Electoral College or the 17th Amendment.
@gabrielrousseau19232 жыл бұрын
The founders wanted the constitution to evolve from what they originally intended. Jefferson was for a strict interpretation of the constitution, meaning he thought that the constitution only allowed what was explicitly written and that the implied power was unconstitutional. However, he was in support of amending it to keep track with the changing times. This isn’t exactly the same because he didn’t write the constitution. But both Madison and Jefferson were strict constitutionalists, so it isn’t a huge leap to say that Madison as a “founder” would be for changing it with the times.
@boedude84962 жыл бұрын
@@gabrielrousseau1923 I wouldn't go so far as to say they wanted the constitution to be changed (semantics?) but they definitely wanted the people to be able to, if there was a massive sea change in some area. change can be good if it is done with eyes wide open and with full disclosure and honesty. we haven't been getting that for many decades, least of all the last several years
@sniffableandirresistble3 жыл бұрын
Objection: vague and ambiguous SUSTAINED ... lol 😆
@charleneterrell Жыл бұрын
This doesn't need to occur before the 30th. What is mine is his. Gregory and Elese is the next King and Queen of the monarch. That's why the attack on their lives were so great. The devil started early. We will discuss succession and estate planning.
@cazador10227 жыл бұрын
So she didnt answer question......
@Sarah-vr7yh Жыл бұрын
Mortals writting. Pause.
@shawncollins6233 жыл бұрын
THIS is the type of justice we need. Someone who will apply the law EQUALLY for everyone. The constitution as it was written was only valid for white, land owning, Christian, heterosexual MEN. Everyone else was not considered a full human being and as such did not have full rights. Any idiot can recite the text itself. Take the second amendment - it only says you have the write to bear arms. No where does it say it say you have the right to buy as many guns as you want, nor does it say you have the right to buy semi automatic military style weapons. Now has the constitution's text stopped Barrett from expanding guns FAR past the original meaning? Absolutely not. Barret is so unworthy of the title its insulting to true legal minds like Sotomayor. It makes me sick a republican politician like Barrett will soon be appointed.
@anthonyvanicek86826 жыл бұрын
While I often disagree with Justice Sotomayor, this was a good response.
@bobmcgranahan70262 жыл бұрын
Courts are to interpret laws.. not make law
@tomchristian99322 жыл бұрын
No… it says what it says….
@lindelwencube54446 жыл бұрын
Obama why? 😒
@54B4Y4N11 жыл бұрын
The private courts present under our local, city corporations are administrative courts of equity... not enforcers of Constitutional law... its maritime law and the judge is the captain... its all British law form. Can we say coercion?
@1974jrod2 жыл бұрын
Kinda
@teddykgb893 жыл бұрын
Pretty sure she said yes.
@qwertyqart7 жыл бұрын
if it's not a living document, why they have added amendements 27 times?
@bugbeemaine5 жыл бұрын
There is a big difference between going through the legal amendment process in order to change the Constitution, verses when judges amend the Constitution through interpretation.
@vidyanandbapat80324 жыл бұрын
It's essence cannot be changes, however some minor changes can be made like monetary threshold of 20 dollars or so might be amended to the one fit to the present times.
@mcguffindoe1923 жыл бұрын
The act of amending is BECAUSE it isn’t a living document. If it were, we would need no new amendments for any issue whatever.
@williamarchie89492 жыл бұрын
Is in need of radication today's sharks are chopping it up into all kinds of interpatations.
@MarzanWorldwide6 жыл бұрын
Unreasonable- not guided by or based on good sense.
@thurstonhowelliii10063 жыл бұрын
That's not an argument. WTF are you talking about? Did you even watch the damn video?
@thurstonhowelliii10063 жыл бұрын
@@MarzanWorldwide Yes I know what the word "unreasonable" means, but merely asserting that she is "unreasonable" is no more of an argument than if I asserted that you were a martian. What evidence do you have to demonstrate your claim that she is "unreasonable"? What is the basis for your claim? You are, after all, referring to a Supreme Court Justice and certainly, I'd presume, you'd hold a higher standard for claims regarding Justices than vague assertion. Particularly given the fact that her judicial reviews, and most of her law reviews prior to her Supreme Court appointment, are available for the public to read. So again,, what is the basis for your claim that she is "unreasonable"?
@YoBroMan7 жыл бұрын
Good Lord! What is she talking about? The difference between her and someone like Scalia is....so enormous I don't have an analogy for it. What a horrible nominee to the court. As soon as Obama did it, I research her and couldn't help but shake my head. If there is any doubt about how Obama views the Constitution, just look at his two appointees; Sotomayor and Kagen. Awful.
@spiffygonzales58996 жыл бұрын
"is that quartering troops" "whats search and seizure" "what is unreasonable" Yes. Searching and seizing. Liberalism.
@itsmeepps6727 ай бұрын
Our documents are living. Mine has God on it that looks like Santa clause with short hair. He is God. God is angry at these people lying to us and making us poor and stealing our inheritance and that is over now. What you thought you would keep getting away with doing is like that? lol. Our Father is the ruler over the entire world. Your DONE
@kgwells11 жыл бұрын
An THAT's why she's a justice. Her experience and knowledge of the law gives her the intelligence to interpret the constitution in this modern and very complex nation. People that leave negative comments are "sincere ignorants and conscientious stupid individuals"
@lindelwencube54446 жыл бұрын
kg23771 that's not her job. Is the constitution is outdated, congress should ammend it not her
@whatitisnt82705 жыл бұрын
give me a break, and get off your knees bootlicker. you ignorant fools worship these people while they make rulings that take away our rights and the rights of our children.
@whatitisnt82705 жыл бұрын
the supreme court continues to violate our constitutional rights. these justices are out of touch with reality and what is happening in the streets. the court ruling that police can have you step out of your car for "officer safety " is a violation of the fourth amendment. so isn't having dogs search your car. cops use "officer safety" for everything, especially if a person tries to invoke their rights. in the court case where they decided it was reasonable to have people step out of their car the man had a gun. is it illegal to have a gun in this country? he didn't attempt to use the gun, but now people are forced out of their car for a minor traffic violation, or more accurately because they assert their rights. not to answer questions, fot instance. like where they are going or coming from. or complete obedience is what the cops are really looking for, in the land of the free. when it comes to dogs searching the cops lie say the dog alerted and when nothing is found they say well at some point there were drugs in your car. the justices are more political than constitutionalists. they violate amendments of the constitution in order to satisfy politicians...
@sandman78496 жыл бұрын
It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
@briancross68202 жыл бұрын
What's the meaning of war in house 🏡 if the law abiding occupance have not expected warmongers deception via public officials in commissions of CRIMES ,you really have TOO ; THINK 🤔💰🤔💰🤔 thought 💭... freedoms meaning respectful RESPONSE=RICO..BJC Respectfully friends and families..nicely done ✅🔬👍✔️⚖️ choices and be truthful TRUTH...
@christo9307 жыл бұрын
IOW, the Constitution means whatever is expedient to my agenda.
@johndanielson37775 жыл бұрын
So.... the conservatives?
@bugbeemaine5 жыл бұрын
@John Henderson No....that is what liberals think.
@petrmoo11 жыл бұрын
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” The Complete Jefferson, p322. Does the Justice really preempt the framers of the Constitution? Read what you write before assuming your pseudo-intellectual position,
@pedroaugusto4590 Жыл бұрын
mano brown
@Silvgv3 жыл бұрын
Too many long haired books have been slowly killing the Contitution. She and RBG don't seem to be in favor of the US Constitution as they try to make us belive.
@Silvgv3 жыл бұрын
Lastly, Quartering troops in homes can and would likely be permited ny any red blooded American.
@heyitsme8812 жыл бұрын
This is absurd semantics
@bduhe2198 жыл бұрын
the constitution is a template. you must apply the law to cases brought up to the court today. you cannot rely on original intent as a base for decisions on modern cases, cause cases dealing with modern issues, were never taken into consideration when the document was drafted. you have to do your homework, and find taht the case brought to the court today, can have applied constitutional merit to defend your point. this should be the way the judges decide cases. original intent gets you spinning in a circle and gets you nowhere.
@zsedcftglkjh8 жыл бұрын
+bduhe219 What's the standard if not the original intent and meaning of the lawmakers? Also, are you American? :) I find that so many of posts with your ideology come from Europe, in which case I don't bother with it. :)
@bduhe2198 жыл бұрын
Zachary Holler original intent cannot be the standard, because 99% of cases brought up today are issues dealing with things that either did not exist 200 plus years go, or are social issues that were not taken into consideration then. all that said, applied intent of the law, as applied to a modern case set against a constitutional outline. a law, written 200 years ago, can have applied meaning to modern cases, even if the case is not a direct subject addresses at the time the document was written. original intent would mean you applied law today on subject matter and social morays of the time the document was written. and on that line of thought, it makes no sense. yes, i am an american. i look at applied law, as opposed to strict original intent, when making decisions on court cases of today.
@zsedcftglkjh8 жыл бұрын
I think 99% of the cases brought before courts today would benefit from a 200 year old perspective . :) Freedom didn't exist 200 years ago? Due process? The right to defend yourself? Natural law? Again, what's the standard of applied law if your starting point is not the originalist meaning of the law?
@bduhe2198 жыл бұрын
Zachary Holler tell me then, where does original intent factor into BROWN, ROE, MARRIAGE EQUALITY, and so on? there were never issues in the 18th or 19th century addressing these particular issues, but the court applied the 13th and 14th amendment to inclued these as cases that are uphelp, using the applied law to each of these.
@zsedcftglkjh8 жыл бұрын
Exactly, I refer you to the tenth amendment.
@frankricci887 жыл бұрын
lolol what a lawyer
@johndanielson37775 жыл бұрын
She’s a judge, really.
@MarzanWorldwide6 жыл бұрын
Seizure- the action of capturing someone or something using force
@reenlight6 жыл бұрын
Hers is the more "postmodern" way of interacting with the text: *creating* as opposed to *extracting*.
@alphablitz10245 жыл бұрын
Her "quartering" argument is bad on its face. The rest is, in my opinion, weaseling.
@spencertaffet94585 жыл бұрын
she didn't make an argument. she set up a hypothetical which very lucidly explained why interpreting the Constitution is extremely difficult and why reasonable can disagree as to its meaning. How is she weaseling? Lol
@piecekeeper53173 жыл бұрын
@@spencertaffet9458 because she's pretending she doesn't know what the word "quartering" (in the context of soldiers) means. Quartering troops means to have them billeted in your home.
@kylefontenot59373 жыл бұрын
She's giving an example. "Cruel and unusual" and "person", "sex", I mean these words all have interpretations which have also evolved. The scope of its apparent meaning is vastly questioned.
@JungleLarry2 жыл бұрын
sUbStAnTiVe DuE pRoCeSs
@Countrymusicnumber111 жыл бұрын
Scientific??
@damionjackson17438 жыл бұрын
Yes the constitution is a living document
@chiguksu5538 жыл бұрын
+Damion jackson Of course it is. Language is alive. How can something wrote in a language that is alive and constantly changing be dead?
@bugbeemaine56738 жыл бұрын
If the Constitution can mean anything you want it to mean in order to get whatever outcomes you want, then it is a dead letter, because you are no longer obeying it. You are just doing whatever you want while falsely claiming to be obeying it.
@chiguksu5538 жыл бұрын
bugbeemaine No. The words have meaning. You follow that meaning. But when it says, "The Congress shall have power...To lay and collect Taxes...and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" the word welfare meant something different prior to the industrial revolution or all of the modern advances in medical care. How can you not understand that?
@bugbeemaine56738 жыл бұрын
Yes, words have meaning, and you go by the meaning of what the people who wrote it, debated it, and ratified it, understood those words to mean. You don't get to change the definition of words just to get the outcome you want. Otherwise, the Constitution means nothing.
@christo9307 жыл бұрын
+chip... You can always get a dictionary and law dictionary from the 18th century and resolve that problem. The Constitution either means what it says or there is no point in having a constitution.
@gevans266810 жыл бұрын
It's INCREDIBLE people like this are put up to even be in contention to be a Judge much less a SUPREME COURT JUDGE. The Supreme Court's job is to review complex cases involving Constitutional issues. Sotomayor exposed she has yet to even grasp the meaning of the most basic English words such as "SEARCH" and "SEIZURE." When she acknowledges she doesn't even comprehend the meaning of these words, how in HELL could she ever understand how particular issues relate to the Constitution. Another example of why this country is in such a corrupt and Constitutional distance state of affairs. It's blatantly obvious this woman was chosen for a reason that had NOTHING to do with COMPETENCE ! SAD
@TheVelluch10 жыл бұрын
Are you kidding or are you serious? She is stating how the idea behind constitutional words can be interpreted differently not there webster dictionary meaning. The supreme court is in place to try to interpret the meaning of the constitutional wording as it was meant when it was written and how it applies to today. The constitution and amendments were written by lawyers, for lawyers to interpret. That is why there are court cases.
@joeljoseph15559 жыл бұрын
TheVelluch But she never answered the question fully, she left it to "interpretation".
@gevans26689 жыл бұрын
TheVelluch Sorry, but you're TOTALLY WRONG and obviously have NO understanding or have been grossly misinformed re the US Constitution and the STATED WRITTEN PURPOSES and LIMITED AUTHORITY of each of the three SEPARATE branches of government. The US Supreme Court's ONLY purpose and authority is the review of lower court's decisions and laws passed involving Constitutional Issues to determine IF these are IN ACCORDANCE with the INTENT and MEANING of the Constitution AS and WHEN written by the founders and approved by Congress and the States as required. The Supreme was NEVER given and has NO AUTHORITY to decide whether or not ANY part of the Constitution is no longer applicable. If it is believed that some part of the Constitution is no longer applicable or any other change needs to be made, an ADMENDMENT must be proposed, submitted before Congress and passed by 2/3 of it's members and then passed by 3/4 of the States. Do some research and study, otherwise you're arguing from exposed ignorance, no offense intended.
@sammo77308 жыл бұрын
+Gary Evans You are a moron. Do you actually think that the shelves & shelves of law books are all based on the intent & meaning of a 250 year old document which was never meant to be comprehensive & wasn't even meant, by some of the Framers to have lasted this long? Are you actually saying that these brilliant minds have all been debating issues which you, Gary, can sum up in a few paragraphs? Perhaps we can just get rid of all remaining justices & just have a court of one. Gary. Offense intended.
@joeljoseph15558 жыл бұрын
LOL True
@tapasyatyaga40412 жыл бұрын
I am with Scalia. Scalia pointed out a profound notion. He said that once we accept that 9 men and women can substitute their judgment for the function of the legislature then the interpretations vould one day go in the direction of Leftists but the other day in favor of the Rightists.
@MarzanWorldwide6 жыл бұрын
Quartering - the provision of accommodations or lodgings, especially for troops.
@jhawk32288 жыл бұрын
That was a sad day when islama appointed this goone. Terrible supreme Court justice! Unjustice, catering to the Democratic way regardless of true law values.God bless 😕
@jhawk32288 жыл бұрын
+Never Ending respect is rewarded with true justice. She is just an islama-obama spawn 😕
@MarmaladeINFP3 жыл бұрын
Many religious founders and framers believed in a living constitution. This is because it was considered that a constitution was a living covenant between God and a specific living generation of people, in that it was a living relationship to a living God. This was a common view among certain Protestants, Anabaptists, and Quakers. But it was also an extremely ancient way of understanding the relationship a particular people have with their god. The idea of a constitution as a dead legalistic contract of abstract ideology was a modern invention. The Anti-Federalists like Jefferson also disagreed about the belief that the dead should be given the right to suppress the right of self-governance of the living. This is why many Anti-Federalists, along with some Federalists, believed that each generation had a right and responsibility to come to its own constitution. This kind of thinking was a major justification for the revolution in the first place. Natural law was accessible by anyone, in the way was the Protestant relationship to the Bible. No paper document or legalistic system could act as an authoritarian force to determine the people's understanding of divine truth and human rights. Natural law, in this radical view, trumps human law. It is irrelevant what past generations of ruling elite believed or what the ruling elite in the present generation claim past generations of ruling elite believed (or project upon them). The dead hand of corpses and ghosts does not alter what is natural law, eternal truth, or however else one wants to think of it. That is what makes the Declaration of Independence so powerful, as the original founding document. A constitution is always a temporary agreement and understanding. This way of thinking was written into the constitution itself that was a messy compromise. This is why the elastic clause was put in. It was assumed by the framers that there could be no binding original intent that could be narrowly interpreted and applied for all time.
@stanislausklim77943 жыл бұрын
But at the same time, we should also keep the main ideas.
@MarmaladeINFP3 жыл бұрын
@@stanislausklim7794 - The problem is there was so much disagreement about the main ideas. That is what divided the founders into Federalists and Anti-Federalists. By the way, it's ironic that the Anti-Federalists were actually the stronger defenders of federalism. But they lost the war of rhetoric.
@fabianbogg93822 жыл бұрын
@@MarmaladeINFP Who cares if there were disagreements? It’s about what was eventually decided. Just think of applying your thought process to „normal“ laws to see whether the thought is reasonable. Should a law not be interpreted by its intended meaning just because it was not passed by 100% of the legislators? As you see such thinking would completely distort the whole democratic process.
@iFreeThink3 жыл бұрын
:[ Drama students.
@jlow5325 жыл бұрын
She'll go down as one of the worst
@bobflob94686 жыл бұрын
I have nothing against her personally. She seems like a very nice person and no doubting she is smart. But she is 100% wrong on the constitution. She is adapting the constitution to her own personal beliefs
@pauldarrigo43955 жыл бұрын
First, let's quote it correctly, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What did unreasonable search and seizures mean when they wrote it? Liberals will never address it that way... because somehow the Human brain changed over time and doesn't work the same any more. I'm joking. J. Sotomayor's answer is whimsically. The roots of search and seizures is based in English common law and Roman Code. "The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be " roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter but the King of England can not enter all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. (FindLaw.Com www.findworld.com/data/Constitution/amendment04/" Quote taken from web1.nusd.k12.az.us/schools/nhs/gthomson.class/pol699.paper/pol699.hist.overview.html ilj.law.indiana.edu/articles/86/86_3_Clancy.pdf This is a well articulated paper on this topic.
@sniffableandirresistble6 жыл бұрын
No its about political agendas and legislating from the bench my little Chicka
@bobbyshaq24043 жыл бұрын
Totally not racist
@brianmccarthy8903 жыл бұрын
It's a progressive document
@HairySasquach6 жыл бұрын
She is a tyrant. Not a judge.
@MrVardaman11 жыл бұрын
Thomas Jefferson was neither a Framer (indeed, he was more or less opposed to the Constitution altogether) nor a jurist, so his opinion is of limited use even to Originalists. . The spirit manifested in the debates are often of no value at all in modern questions of the Constitution, since the Framers had no thoughts whatever on these issues. The Orginalists have to revert to absurd ideas (Alito's "tiny constable" hiding in a carriage for instane) to make their arguments, which is insane.
@BuckyBrown-lt4ry6 жыл бұрын
Soto is a Hispanic from the Bronx. What more can you say?