And when Repubs could not win in the arena of ideas, debate, truth or fact, they refused to allow a vote on Garland. Stacking is stacking, just a different way to accomplish the same thing.
Mr. Moore, in response to your previous post, I am responding.
The job of the Supreme Court is NOT to reflect the will of the people. It is to interpret the Constitution as written.
If the majority of people wanted women denied the right to vote, the Supreme Court would determine the legality of that law within the Constitution.
It is Congress that is supposed to reflect the will of the people. Each congress person is to reflect the will of his/her constituents.
Each of the three branches has its own responsibilities. Have you ever heard the term “Separate but equal”?
Read the document.
Mr. Moore, in response to your previous post, I a... (show quote)
The Constitution needs no interpretation. The SC is there to determine whether a legislated law is valid based on what the Constitution says as written.
bullshit, when it comes to corporate or political interest, the majority votes along party lines. why else do they work so hard to get "their" thinking people on the bench? the court should be neutral, so that all judgements are fair and impartial.
That is how it should work. However, liberal judges have been ruling in favor of their pre-determined outcome regardless what the law actually says.
The Constitution needs no interpretation. The SC is there to determine whether a legislated law is valid based on what the Constitution says as written.
Then you had better tell Wrangler:
The job of the Supreme Court is NOT to reflect the will of the people. It is to interpret the Constitution as written.
What did the constitution say about abortion. You would not want to go beyond what the constitution says. Also I did not see semi-automatic weapons mentioned in the constitution, you would never “interpret” the words GUNS to mean semi-automatic with 100 round magazines.
bobericLoc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander
Frank T wrote:
How about they stop voting on party lines? Yes. Both sides.
A reasonable response. What's different now is that the democrats are saying If We don't get our way we will change the rules. 2 of the most Liberal judges RBG ans Sotomayor (sp?) were appointed by liberal presidents, and the repubs did not threaten restructuring. Sounds like the dems are saying like Linus saying he is going to take his footballl home unless he gats his way.
A reasonable response. What's different now is that the democrats are saying If We don't get our way we will change the rules. 2 of the most Liberal judges RBG ans Sotomayor (sp?) were appointed by liberal presidents, and the repubs did not threaten restructuring. Sounds like the dems are saying like Linus saying he is going to take his footballl home unless he gats his way.
Kinda like if I cannot get the justice I want, I will not allow vote on any justice. Remember Repubs and Garland. Paybacks.
And when Repubs could not win in the arena of ideas, debate, truth or fact, they refused to allow a vote on Garland. Stacking is stacking, just a different way to accomplish the same thing.
Well g’morning sweet pee. Sleep well? How are those new dentures.
The job of the Supreme Court is NOT to reflect the will of the people. It is to interpret the Constitution as written.
What did the constitution say about abortion. You would not want to go beyond what the constitution says. Also I did not see semi-automatic weapons mentioned in the constitution, you would never “interpret” the words GUNS to mean semi-automatic with 100 round magazines.
A gun launches projectiles. A single action or semi automatic does the same. Technology has changed but a gun is still a gun.
The Constitution does not mention automobiles so are they illegal? The Constitution does not mention radios, internet, television or a lot of things that we use everday. Are all those things illegal in your world?
Well, since the “interpretation” can be more than one direction, it will be no problem to appoint justices with the “people’s interpretation”. As opposed to the fascist conservative libertarian “interpretation”. And with Dems having all three branches, they will be equal.
They interpret the constitution, not the people’s opinion. Read something other than a manifesto.
A gun launches projectiles. A single action or semi automatic does the same. Technology has changed but a gun is still a gun.
The Constitution does not mention automobiles so are they illegal? The Constitution does not mention radios, internet, television or a lot of things that we use everday. Are all those things illegal in your world?
A gun launches projectiles. A single action or semi automatic does the same. Technology has changed but a gun is still a gun.
The Constitution does not mention automobiles so are they illegal? The Constitution does not mention radios, internet, television or a lot of things that we use everday. Are all those things illegal in your world?
Your side is hung up on “no interpretation” not mine.