Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

He sees no value in studying any of it.

Sounds like he's really out of touch if you ask me.

I bet Obama agrees 100%.

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner in a post published to Slate, U.S. judges should stop studying the Constitution.

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner argued.

a reply to: xuenchen

This should result in immediate termination.

The constitution of the US is the law.

If you don't see value in the law you have no place on the bench.

a reply to: xuenchen

What a loser

a reply to: xuenchen

I see no reason for him to be a judge... Doesn't he swear an oath?

Seems this Judge is stationed in Chicago, and lives near the Obama home.

This explains the whole thing.

He would have to be one stupid POS to say something like that and paint a big bullsye on his temple like that.

Perhaps he is part of the reason why renowned Princeton University has concluded, from their study: truthinmedia.com..., that the U.S. is no longer a Constitutional Republic, consisting of elected officials representing public interest, but an Oligarchy, whose sole purpose is not representing the people of the land (majority), but the rich and corrupt with power (10%?).
Wonder how many more judges have been bought and paid for?
Why the ignorant masses refuse to stand against tyranny is beyond my comprehension. Even in the most innate sense, internally, no one bats an eye or raises an eyebrow.

a reply to: xuenchen

Not surprising, especially coming from "Slate"! What a rag......

I wonder what laws this so called "judge" wants to rule by? Is he cool with ending Democracy?

I want the old days back, when scum bags like this judge would be dealt with by a good length of rope!

The US Constitution is TIMELESS. Particularly the Bill of Rights.

Anyone that goes around calling it 'outdated' is pushing totalitarianism.

The problem is people going around IGNORING it because it's a hindrance to absolute despotism.

And if your a judge saying that absolute CRAP ?

Needs FIRED, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

How did he get his job? Seeing as he doesn't understand it's most basic responsibility

Here is what he said:

And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments). Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century. Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today. David Strauss is right: The Supreme Court treats the Constitution like it is authorizing the court to create a common law of constitutional law, based on current concerns, not what those 18th-century guys were worrying about. In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.

I'd say he actually has a point.

www.slate.com... ed_more_practical_experience.html?wpsh_all_mob_tw_top

a reply to: xuenchen

This statement should automatically disqualify this fool from holding ANY position of power. He has a fiduciary duty to the public to uphold the Constitution above all other things. It is the basis of his JOB.

Yah the Constitution sucks.

The worst aspect (its primary function) is that it attempts to control government and limit its power.

Judges should be able to legislate from the bench.

Congressmen and bureaucrats should be free to strip Americans of rights without any resistance.

And what a shock, the liberal leaning 7th Circus.

Did one of you guys want to start the petition to have this clown removed or should I?

a reply to: introvert

I'd say he actually has a point.

I could not disagree with you more and I disagree with you most of the time already. Just a sad, sad statement.

I'd say he actually has a point.

Never was a more accurate avatar.

And I am not surprised you'd say that. The Constitution should be about the only thing Federal Judges ought to study.

And I have read the article, and no, he does not have any point beyond letting his inner fascist show up.

If you're objective enough to think about the constitution without rosey glasses, it's already been determined a couple of times to be outdated. Hence multiple amendments to fix outdated parts.

That fact alone should tell you that it can and will be, at any given point in time, outdated with regards to any social period it's re-examined in.

At best, it's really a tweakable suggestion list, not a gold-clad guide book.

originally posted by: Nyiah
If you're objective enough to think about the constitution without rosey glasses, it's already been determined a couple of times to be outdated. Hence multiple amendments to fix outdated parts.

That fact alone should tell you that it can and will be, at any given point in time, outdated with regards to any social period it's re-examined in.

At best, it's really a tweakable suggestion list, not a gold-clad guide book.

No, it's not outdated. It has the amendment process in it which is what keeps it from being outdated.

a reply to: introvert

EVERY THING.

Hitler did was LEGAL.

What is the greatest road block to people like him?

That stinking piece of paper that it seems so many FASCISTS dislike.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: introvert

I'd say he actually has a point.

I could not disagree with you more and I disagree with you most of the time already. Just a sad, sad statement.

Perhaps you disagree because you lack the desire or ability to take his words and analyze them properly.

For example:

The 2nd amendment says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Ok, that's pretty simple. But it does not define 'arms', nor does it reflect the right itself in relation to modern technology. That lack of definition is what has allowed states to define that right for us and limit our 2nd amendment right beyond what the constitution states.

Do you get the drift?