# Bricker is a Pile of Shit Sculpted into Human Shape **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 30, 2017, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344 "2017-03-30T13:46:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/281 "2017-05-11T20:06:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > WADR I think you are making the same mistake as **CandidGamera** - conflating what **should be** Constitutional with what **is** Constitutional. Even in the case of the 5-4 decision. 4 Justices in that case thought that it **should be** Constitutional vs. 5 who thought it **should not**. But then the case is decided, at which point we know what is Constitutional whether it should be, or not. > > It would be like saying that Hillary Clinton **is** President because she got more of the popular vote. Saying she **should be** President because of that might be a discussable point. Saying that she **is** President is a misstatement of fact. IYSWIM. > > Regards, > Shodan This conflates the two different meanings of constitutional that are being discussed. One meaning: approved by the Supreme Court. Another meaning: consistent with the text of the Constitution. Both meanings are intended in different contexts. Suppose the Supreme Court rules 9-0 that it doesn’t need a case or controversy, and that it can pass legislation. Is that action unconstitutional? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/282 "2017-05-11T20:06:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > WADR I think you are making the same mistake as **CandidGamera** - conflating what **should be** Constitutional with what **is** Constitutional. Even in the case of the 5-4 decision. 4 Justices in that case thought that it **should be** Constitutional vs. 5 who thought it **should not**. But then the case is decided, at which point we know what is Constitutional whether it should be, or not. > > It would be like saying that Hillary Clinton **is** President because she got more of the popular vote. Saying she **should be** President because of that might be a discussable point. Saying that she **is** President is a misstatement of fact. IYSWIM. > > Regards, > Shodan So how do you account for the reversal of Plessy? The original court just fucked up? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/283 "2017-05-11T20:07:55Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Fair enough. Can you link to a thread where Bricker is being abusive to someone for stating their opinion on the Constitutionality of something without backing it up with facts? And he could maybe add a link for the hypocritical one where I used “constitutional” without adding “my opinion,” and was supporting the side not enshrined in caselaw. Got that, somewhere, G? ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/284 "2017-05-11T20:08:05Z")
Looks like Bricker has his strawman, now, so he should go down for his nap quietly. Now the adults can talk. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/285 "2017-05-11T20:08:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > On a message board supposedly devoted to fighting ignorance, Goofy argues that the ignorant deserve an equal place in the discussion. > > Obviously this argument arises from self-interest, but even taking that into account I am amazed he has the willingness to offer it. > > Sorry. Not “argument.” It’s “opinion,” which should insulate it from critical review. > > Not in this lifetime, lovable Disney character! I don’t know how you can sleep at night knowing of this abuse you have heaped on a poor, lowly Dope poster who simply wants to offer their unfounded opinion during an online debate. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/286 "2017-05-11T20:09:36Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > So how do you account for the reversal of Plessy? The original court just fucked up? Yes, the original court fucked up. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/287 "2017-05-11T20:11:48Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Fair enough. Can you link to a thread where Bricker is being abusive to someone for stating their opinion on the Constitutionality of something without backing it up with facts? I’m sure you can dig them up. Just search for Bricker and Constitution, and check about three of’em, odds are, you’ll find an example. The Citizens United discussions we’ve had over the years would be good places to start. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/288 "2017-05-11T20:11:52Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > WADR I think you are making the same mistake as **CandidGamera** - conflating what **should be** Constitutional with what **is** Constitutional. Nope. As **Richard Parker** points out, these are two different definitions for the same word. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > That one. It explains his whole view of the process right there. (Except the hypocritical part with the double standard for himself.) WTF, that’s what you’re so mad about? That’s a totally reasonable point he’s making there. Your interpretation of a text is a claim about the text; of course you should be accountable for evidence that supports your claim. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/289 "2017-05-11T20:12:52Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Yes, the original court fucked up. So your position is that the segregation of schools was never Constitutional? That’s a mighty fine \*\*opinion \*\*you have there. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/290 "2017-05-11T20:12:57Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > For Bricker, the constitutionality of something is a fact. (Except, again, when a liberal court made the ruling, then he, and only he, gets to assert that it was ‘wrongly decided’.) He’s basically verbally abusing people for not using language the way he wants them to. Could you provide an example or two of **Bricker** saying that a decision was wrongly decided, where he did not add “in my opinion” or “I believe” or words to that effect? Because I make an effort to read him, especially on legal issues, and I cannot recall any. Or better still, somewhere that he said something was un-Constitutional, even though the Court had ruled that it was. TIA. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/291 "2017-05-11T20:13:51Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > So how do you account for the reversal of Plessy? The original court just fucked up? Walk down the street with an ounce of whiskey, an ounce of marijuana, and an ounce of gold in your pocket. At certain times in US history, all, some, or none of those would be illegal. It is correct to use “illegal,” to describe the current state of the law, even though the law may change. It is similarly correct to use “constitutional,” to describe the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. Even though the constitution may be amended, literally by the amendment process or in its effect by caselaw. That does not open the door to the anything-goes-it’s-all-opinion school. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/292 "2017-05-11T20:15:02Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you provide an example or two of **Bricker** saying that a decision was wrongly decided, where he did not add “in my opinion” or “I believe” or words to that effect? Because I make an effort to read him, especially on legal issues, and I cannot recall any. > > Or better still, somewhere that he said something was un-Constitutional, even though the Court had ruled that it was. TIA. > [@CandidGamera](#): > > I’m sure you can dig them up. Just search for Bricker and Constitution, and check about three of’em, odds are, you’ll find an example. The Citizens United discussions we’ve had over the years would be good places to start. Why don’t you do it? Answer: probably he wasn’t literally saying that search would work. It was just his opinion. Not anything real. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/293 "2017-05-11T20:16:55Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nope. As **Richard Parker** points out, these are two different definitions for the same word. > > WTF, that’s what you’re so mad about? That’s a totally reasonable point he’s making there. Your interpretation of a text is a claim about the text; of course you should be accountable for evidence that supports your claim. For fuck’s sake. If I say an apple is ‘delicious’, I’m not making a claim. If I say network throttling is unethical, I’m not making a claim. If I say I believe ‘X’, the only thing being ‘claimed’ is that that is my belief. Look up ‘claim’ : “an assertion of the truth of something” Opinions may be defensible or indefensible, but they are not true or false. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/294 "2017-05-11T20:18:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It is similarly correct to use “constitutional,” to describe the current state of constitutional jurisprudence. Even though the constitution may be amended, literally by the amendment process or in its effect by caselaw. That is one definition. And dissenting opinions in Supreme Court cases use another. ---
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/295 "2017-05-11T20:19:34Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > So your position is that the segregation of schools was never Constitutional? > > That’s a mighty fine \*\*opinion \*\*you have there. Sure is! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/296 "2017-05-11T20:19:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Nope. As **Richard Parker** points out, these are two different definitions for the same word. As an example of the former use (the interpretive use, not the use about how the SC has decided), consider [this sentence from Shelby County vs. Holder](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/570/12-96/opinion3.html) > [@](#): > > Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Shelby County contends that the preclearance requirement, even without regard to its disparate coverage, is now unconstitutional. What does “unconstitutional” mean here? If you’re correct, it means, “Shelby County contends that a majority of the Supreme Court has ruled the preclearance requirement violative of the Constitution.” But that’s clearly ridiculous: the court hadn’t ruled on the issue, yet Shelby County contended the requirement was unconstitutional. It only makes sense if they’re saying it’s unconstitutional **according to their understanding of the constitution**. Which is a fine claim to make. Yes, after the Supreme Court makes a decision, we know what interpretation is binding on the land, and that’s certainly one meaning of “constitutional.” But the other meaning–“according to my interpretation of the constitution”–is a valid meaning, and one that legal scholars all the way up through SC justices routinely use in their writings. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/297 "2017-05-11T20:21:19Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > For fuck’s sake. If I say an apple is ‘delicious’, I’m not making a claim. Indeed–and that’s the difference between an aesthetic opinion and a textual interpretation. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/298 "2017-05-11T20:24:22Z")
> [@Slash1972](#): > > Sure is! Sadly, Bricker would disagree with you. He would say that segregation was constitutional until 1954. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/299 "2017-05-11T20:25:23Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > This conflates the two different meanings of constitutional that are being discussed. > > One meaning: approved by the Supreme Court. > Another meaning: consistent with the text of the Constitution. > > Both meanings are intended in different contexts. I don’t believe I have ever read **Bricker** say that a Supreme Court decision was un-Constitutional. Even if it conflicted with the text. AFAICT he always uses the term in the first sense. Perhaps he will correct me. > [@](#): > > Suppose the Supreme Court rules 9-0 that it doesn’t need a case or controversy, and that it can pass legislation. Is that action unconstitutional? Strictly speaking, and in the sense that I believe **Bricker** uses the term, yes. It shouldn’t be, obviously, and no doubt the Justices would be impeached and removed from office, or Congress would pass laws making an exception (which the Supreme Court would overturn, whereupon they would be impeached and removed from office.) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2017, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344/300 "2017-05-11T20:25:43Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Indeed–and that’s the difference between an aesthetic opinion and a textual interpretation. So you are saying that each person’s interpretation of the Constitution is factual, therefore either true or false, therefore a claim. :dubious: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bricker-is-a-pile-of-shit-sculpted-into-human-shape/783344.md?page=16)