Go figure (NJ Supreme Court Says Reading Constitution Literally Is WRONG)

Washington Times ^ | August 6, 2003 | John McCaslin

[PJ-Comix]

Judge Learned Hand had a legal career stretching over 50 years and yet this quote is supposedly made on the day he died and is only ATTRIBUTED to him. Suprising that this quote was made only on his deathbed. I am VERY DUBIOUS that Learned Hand actually made this quote. More likely wishful thinking by a liberal legal type.

[steve8714]

Today it means,"me lose brains?...That's unpossible!"
Tomorrow, who knows?

[an amused spectator]

Clearly the collective feelings of the court is much more important than the actual constitution or law.

Can't you see how much the New Jersey Supreme Court believes in its causes? How can you deny the validity of their emotions by failing to agree with them? ;-)

[steplock]

Thanx for the Correction - Now to go correct a few other places! :>)

[Gritty]

Hmmmm. Where have I seen something like this before>

Oh, wait a minute. I remember....

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

... But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security... The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

... He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

... For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Yeah, that's it.

[steplock]

"After reading part of the actual decision, I found the NJ Supreme Court didn't make that statement themselves"

IMHO, anuthing that is printed in the Opinion *IS* the OPINION of the court.

Whether they "originally" created the quote, or simply "restated" (Plagerized) a quote, it still makes it their OFFICIAL OPINION.

No??

[PJ-Comix]

And the judge who cited that quote certainly believes in it. BTW, I am HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS as to the real source of the quote. Supposedly it was ATTRIBUTED to Judge Learned Hand on the DAY HE DIED. Huh? How valid is that quote? Did anybody actually HEAR him say that? Methinks this quote is more like WISHFUL THINKING on the part of liberals. Anyway, it might make for an interesting project to check out the VALIDITY of that quote supposedly made by Learned Hand.

When I read that it was ATTRIBUTED to him on the day of his death, all sorts of red flags went up in my mind.

[BubbaBasher]

Although the quote used by the NJSC is absolutely ridiculous, read about the beliefs of the judge that originally made it.

Appearently an atheist, atheism.about.com states:
His views have, however, played a role in the constitutional arena because of his strong opinions about the limited power judges should have, more commonly known as judicial restraint. He condemned what he saw a judicial activism and judged "making law" when they should leave policy questions to elected officials. He objected to the constitutional decisions written by the Supreme Court under Hugo Black and William O. Douglas, arguing against the idea that judges should expand the meaning of the Bill of Rights as society itself grows and develops.

If this statement is true, the NJ Supreme Court has totally disreguarded the fundamental belief of the person they quote to justify their ignorance.

[PJ-Comix]

If this statement is true, the NJ Supreme Court has totally disreguarded the fundamental belief of the person they quote to justify their ignorance.

As I stated, I HIGHLY DOUBT Judge Learned Hand actually made that quote. The source I saw said it was ATTRIBUTED to him on the DAY HE DIED. So how valid is that quote? And WHO attributed it to Learned Hand? The fact the quote was SUPPOSEDLY made on the DAY HE DIED raises all sort of red flags as to its validity.

[tpaine]

Welcome to kevins bizarro world, where he invents positions I supposedly "admire".

Stuff a sock in it curry.

[Consort]

Like I said: The Constitution is whatever a majority on the court interpretes it to be, regardless of what the Founders thought or what the Congress or the President or you or me think it should be.

[ricklucas]

I have to read this after some whiskey

[Scenic Sounds]

When a court can resolve an issue by a literal interpretation of a statute or Constitution, then they should nearly always do so. However, there isn't one member of the United States Supreme Court (including Scalia, Thomas and Rehnquist) who doesn't use far more than the literal words of the Constitution to decide cases.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Thou shall not kill.

I wonder if that should be taken literally?

No. We kill often and daily and it is all legal and moral.

However, that is an example of something taken out of context and from a translation that should have been expanded. Thou shall not murder is more what is intended.

[CCCV]

taken out of context
Point well taken. I assumed the context here would have been murder.

[wasp69]

And the slippery slope becomes just that much more slippery....

[dufekin]

Let me fix this:

"Officer, the sign read 65."

"Then why were you doing 90?"

"The New Jersey Supreme Court says that 'there is no surer way to misread any document than to read it literally'. I assumed that we could substitute RPMx100 for MPH, and I was still under 6500 RPMs when you stopped me."

"I'm sorry, ma'am, this isn't New Jersey. Y'all crazy Yankees need to learn that we say what we mean and mean what we say down here, y'hear?" (New Jersey's speed limit is 50, except 55 on the freeways.)

"So---"

"That's right, ma'am. New Jersey Stupid Supremes don't got any jursidiction here. And I'll have to write you up."

...

[Lost Highway]

Sounds like the same theory the Episcopaliens use to interpret the Bible.

[lepton]

If this statement is true, the NJ Supreme Court has totally disreguarded the fundamental belief of the person they quote to justify their ignorance.

Kinda like all of the court rulings that rely on U.S. v. Miller.