Skip to comments.
Go figure (NJ Supreme Court Says Reading Constitution Literally Is WRONG)
Washington Times ^
| August 6, 2003
| John McCaslin
Posted on 08/06/2003 5:32:35 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:05:56 PM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
Thom Golab, a vice president at the nonpartisan Competitive Enterprise Institute, observes: "In defending the Democrats' unconstitutional legislative redistricting map, the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a bizarre statement in their opinion: 'Literalism must be avoided because there is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally.' "
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
TOPICS: Extended News; Politics/Elections; US: New Jersey
KEYWORDS: constitution; courts; judges; justice; liberals; mdm; newjersey; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
To: PJ-Comix
there is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literallyNow that this quote appears in writing, this article is arguable a document.
Therefore, it is important not to take this quote literally. I read it to mean that you have to read documents literally. That's the only logical way to understand this quote, based on the comments of this moron.
21
posted on
08/06/2003 5:57:18 AM PDT
by
Maceman
To: BubbaBasher
Remember, everything I say is a lie!Listen carefully now. I am lying.
Didn't the android melt down trying to figure that one out?
To: Maceman
I can see the NJ Supreme Court's excuse for this quote. "Hey, that is what we said but it shouldn't be interpreted literally. We didn't really mean what we said."
23
posted on
08/06/2003 5:59:13 AM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
(He Who Laughs Last Was Too Dumb To Figure Out The Joke First)
To: PJ-Comix
Just like the Bible.
24
posted on
08/06/2003 5:59:37 AM PDT
by
wingnuts'nbolts
(I agree with Dick Morris. Off with their heads! Let's start with the Clintons, all three of them.)
To: PJ-Comix
http://www.politicsnj.com/ Top court OK's legislative districts
The New Jersey Supreme Court today upheld the current legislative redistricting map, overturning an Appellate Court decision by 4-3 vote. The Supreme Court said that notwithstanding the language of the state Constitution, Newark and Jersey City can be divided into more than two districts each. Voting in the majority were Justices James Coleman, Virginia Long and James Zazzali, along with Appellate Court Judge Sylvia Pressler, who was filling in for recused Chief Justice Deborah Poritz. Justices Peter Verniero, Barry Albin and Jaynee LaVecchia dissented. "Literalism must be avoided because 'there is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally," Coleman wrote in the majority opinion.
Court Opinion:
http://home.aoc.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/supreme/a-73-02.pdf .
25
posted on
08/06/2003 6:00:17 AM PDT
by
steplock
(www.FOCUS.GOHOTSPRINGS.com)
To: PJ-Comix
SCOTUS even feels the need to take into consideration findings from the EU world, probably France.
26
posted on
08/06/2003 6:01:23 AM PDT
by
wingnuts'nbolts
(I agree with Dick Morris. Off with their heads! Let's start with the Clintons, all three of them.)
To: tpaine
Please note: the NJ Supreme Court is simply following the example of the liberal majority of the SCOTUS you so much admire.
As do all tyrants, liberal supreme court justices just l-o-v-e to exercise plenary authority over all aspects of their minions' lives.
27
posted on
08/06/2003 6:01:59 AM PDT
by
Kevin Curry
(Put Justice Janice Rogers Brown on the Supreme Court--NOW)
To: PJ-Comix
The NJ Supremos have come up with some doozies over the years. My favorites have been in the field of education, where they first required that every district spend the same amount on each student, only later to decide that the poorest performing districts must spend whatever necessary to achieve the same results as the best performing district.
They're up to $15,000 per pupil in some of the urban districts now, with no end in sight...
28
posted on
08/06/2003 6:03:00 AM PDT
by
gridlock
("Living History" is like the "Living Constitution": To be re-written as current conditions require.)
To: PJ-Comix; XJarhead
The horrible aspect of this is that these barbarians clearly believe they can get away with such nonsense.
I HATE ACTIVIST JUSTICES!
To: CCCV
Thou shall not kill
I wonder if that should be taken literally?
It should not be considered at all according to the ACLU and the Supreme Court.
30
posted on
08/06/2003 6:05:12 AM PDT
by
Khepera
(Do not remove by penalty of law!)
To: steplock
Thanx for the link. This quote was so bizarre that one might think it was made up by some "right-winger" to discredit liberal judges. However, as we see, it was written by a NJ Supreme Court justice writing a majority opionion (excuse) for flat out ignoring the law as it is written. This quote must be given the WIDEST possible publicity.
Oh, and thanx to Justice James Coleman for slipping up and allowing the truth to slip out.
31
posted on
08/06/2003 6:07:35 AM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
(He Who Laughs Last Was Too Dumb To Figure Out The Joke First)
To: steplock
Thanx for the link. This quote was so bizarre that one might think it was made up by some "right-winger" to discredit liberal judges. However, as we see, it was written by a NJ Supreme Court justice writing a majority opionion (excuse) for flat out ignoring the law as it is written. This quote must be given the WIDEST possible publicity.
Oh, and thanx to Justice James Coleman for slipping up and allowing the truth to slip out.
32
posted on
08/06/2003 6:07:35 AM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
(He Who Laughs Last Was Too Dumb To Figure Out The Joke First)
To: PJ-Comix
Law now is just like weather forecasts - unpredictable. Welcome to anarchy. So when does the shooting start?
To: PJ-Comix
And the Episcopalian Church says the same thing about the Bible!!
How very Clintonian.
If anyone has any doubts that we are in the end-times, they better get a grip!
To: PJ-Comix
there is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literallyI just keep looking at this and shaking my head. It's exactly the logic that allows the Episcopal church to appoint a gay Bishop. When there are no values or universal truths and reality is defined by the reader, not the writer, then the poverty of man's least thought trumps the divinity of God's word. I guess we've sacrificed J.C. for PC.
35
posted on
08/06/2003 6:09:57 AM PDT
by
Camachee
(`)
To: sergeantdave
I'm feeling a parody story here somewhere. Maybe works of literature as interpreted by the NJ Supreme Court.
36
posted on
08/06/2003 6:10:22 AM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
(He Who Laughs Last Was Too Dumb To Figure Out The Joke First)
To: Dr Warmoose
Hmm. Very good point.
Afterall, you have the right of equal protection under the law.
To: PJ-Comix
Speed limit signs and the constitution are suppose to do the same thing: set a limit. But if reading either the sign or the constitution and taking their meanings literally is misreading the sign or the constitution, the only right thing to do is gleam from the written word what makes you feel best. So, a 55 mph speed limit sign can be read to mean that as long as your current speed includes 55 mph, any speed beyond that has to be lawful. But then again, going 45 mph or lower is lawful too because you have not exceeded the limit imposed in the event you do not reach the posted speed. I think I could get a job in Jersey!
38
posted on
08/06/2003 6:10:51 AM PDT
by
whereasandsoforth
(tagged for migratory purposes only)
To: PJ-Comix
'Literalism must be avoided because there is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally.
Translation - The words of the law are in our way so we will pretend it says what we would prefer.
Or am I taking that too literally?
39
posted on
08/06/2003 6:15:07 AM PDT
by
Tamzee
(I was a vegetarian until I started leaning toward the sunlight...... Rita Rudner)
To: whereasandsoforth
Unless judicial nominees agree with the NJ Supreme Court statement, they will be filibustered by the Demmycrats in the U.S. Senate for being vile strict contructionists who believe the U.S. Constitution should be read as it is written.
40
posted on
08/06/2003 6:15:35 AM PDT
by
PJ-Comix
(He Who Laughs Last Was Too Dumb To Figure Out The Joke First)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson