64 Senators Support Torture

[Sava]

Johnson was an appeaser?

[Ned]

Imran, I think your attitude about lack of reliance on congressional history for interpretation of the meaning of statutes is little more than bizarre. The President of the United States negotiated the CAT treaty. He stated his interpretation of the distinction between torture and coercion by reference to Ireland v. UK. Now you state that courts cannot look to the president's interpretation of this case contained in the legislative history for the meaning of the word "torture" and the the distinction between "torture" and "coercion?"

Just for your legal education, the most important document that controls the interpretation of the terms used in a patent is the record of its prosecution before the US Patent Office. Many times, the applicant and the patent examiner gave those terms peculiar meaning, understanding or critical limitations. To the extent that these vary from other, ordinary parlance, that interpretation controls.

Ditto statutes, particularly those that are implementations of international treaties, where the president gave Congress his interpretation of the terms used in the treaty and those same terms are used in the statute.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you think of the kind of decisions/agenda Gonzales will bring to the court, especially given his record in Texas on their Supreme CourT?

I don't know of his record in the Texas Supreme Court. I wouldn't have confirmed him because his memo is very sloppy in research. I know of no legal scholar who says it is good work.

Imran, I think your attitude about lack of reliance on congressional history for interpretation of the meaning of statutes is little more than bizarre.

Apparently you've never heard of Justice Scalia.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sava
Johnson was an appeaser?

Sava, Yes. The way he conducted the war was more than pitiful. It was criminal. He was doing everything in half measures in order to send "messages" to the North Vietnamese, as if his numerous overtures made in public were not enough. He never once said that if you don't sign a peace agreement now, we will destroy you. Never.

Then the North Koreans took one of our ships. What did he do? Nothing, but beg. Beg. And beg some more. He thoroughly humiliated the United States as did Carter a decade later.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

What do you think of the kind of decisions/agenda Gonzales will bring to the court, especially given his record in Texas on their Supreme CourT?

I don't know of his record in the Texas Supreme Court. I wouldn't have confirmed him because his memo is very sloppy in research. I know of no legal scholar who says it is good work.

Imran, I think your attitude about lack of reliance on congressional history for interpretation of the meaning of statutes is little more than bizarre.

Apparently you've never heard of Justice Scalia.

Yeah, I have. But on this issue, he is wrong.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yeah, I have. But on this issue, he is wrong.

Nope, he's 100% correct. Legislative history is the absolute worst tool to use. How do you know why a majority voted the way they did? If you knew how many times that staffers put outrageous things in committee reports just to see if anyone would notice (frightingly no one does and then they become references in decisions), you would be shocked!

The only thing that matters is the text and the text alone. "Legislative History" is a joke and is used so the judge can twist the text to his own benefit. I thought you didn't like activists on the bench.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yeah, I have. But on this issue, he is wrong.

Nope, he's 100% correct. Legislative history is the absolute worst tool to use. How do you know why a majority voted the way they did? If you knew how many times that staffers put outrageous things in committee reports just to see if anyone would notice (frightingly no one does and then they become references in decisions), you would be shocked!

The only thing that matters is the text and the text alone. "Legislative History" is a joke and is used so the judge can twist the text to his own benefit. I thought you didn't like activists on the bench.

I agree about "staffers." I disagree when the interpretation is from the president.

What is Scalia's attitude about the meaning of the constitution and amendments? Should we ignore the debates and other documents from the time of drafting and passage?

I doubt it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What is Scalia's attitude about the meaning of the constitution and amendments? Should we ignore the debates and other documents from the time of drafting and passage?

Yes. He's a textualist. He doesn't give a damn about the debates. The only thing he really cares about that time is what the words meant according to a DICTIONARY from 1776. He doesn't care what the drafters thought the words meant. After all, they weren't the ones that ratified the Constitution.

Why is interpretation from the President any different? You think he personally writes it? God no! And he's not voting for the Senate either.