Supreme Court Threatened
Aug 15, 2019 19:28:08 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
What a silly question. Congress and the states do say something about “ bribing lawmakers”, it is illegal. Influencing lawmakers happens everyday. I would be fine with banning financial lobbying but it is how Moscow Mitch stays in power.
gee it's illegal and they do it anyway, you gotta love this country.
Aug 15, 2019 19:47:20 #
bull drink water wrote:
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.
It’s not about fair, feelings, goodness, as it was already said above it’s about the protection of constitution of the law for all America and Americans.
Aug 15, 2019 20:01:44 #
bull drink water wrote:
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.
I agree the court should be neutral. They should all be strict originalist who look at what was intended by the writers of the Constitution and of subsequent laws and only look at that. Instead liberal judges and unfortunately some more conservative ones interpret the Constitution, which is not their duty. They job is to make sure that laws conform to the Constitution. Big difference.
If all judges looked at the original clear intent we would all be better off. You seem angry that the five "conservative" judges often vote in a block, but don't seem to have any problem when the four liberal judges do.
And if you look it is the "conservatives" who frequently break ranks, not the liberals. Remember it was Roberts who wrote 22 pages explaining how the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional and then one page allowing it. The conservative judges were flabbergasted because the night before the ruling was announced Roberts had said that he agreed with them and his written opinion proves it's unconstitutional.
And look at this summer how often Trumps two appointees have broken ranks. It is a significant number of times.
Aug 15, 2019 20:08:43 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
Glad we agree, the constitution is open for interpretation.
Constitutionally. We are diametrically opposed. Nice try comrade...
Aug 15, 2019 20:12:11 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
bull drink water wrote:
yeah, and what about butt and sister fucking?
Read the tenth amendment.
Aug 15, 2019 20:53:10 #
mjmoore17 wrote:
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.
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.
The job of the supreme court is not to interpret the Constitution. It is to discern whether new laws conform to what the Constitution says and what the founders said the intent of the Constitution was.
Understanding the Constitution is really simple if you quit trying to interpret it and just read what it literally says and what the writers of it said in explanation.
It doesn't matter that they didn't know there would eventually be 100 round magazines since they clearly wrote that the right to bear arms shall not be abridged and they were clear in their other writings that that is indeed exactly what they meant.
Scalia understood that and wrote accordingly that the writers of the Constitution intended that citizens had the same firepower as the government, which is exactly what Jefferson explains.
All judges should be required to be originalists. If they were we would have reasoned impartial rulings that follow the letter of the Constitution.
Aug 15, 2019 20:54:26 #
bull drink water wrote:
yeah, and what about butt and sister fucking?
What you do is your business.
Aug 15, 2019 20:55:30 #
yhtomit wrote:
They interpret the constitution, not the people’s opinion. Read something other than a manifesto.
vhtomit, I have to respectfully disagree. The reason that we have the mess we do now is because judges are interpreting the Constitution. That isn't their task. Their task is to determine if new laws conform to the Constitution or not. The Constitution needs no interpretation. It is intended to be taken literally. If that is done we don't have a problem with partisanship.
Aug 15, 2019 21:01:37 #
btbg wrote:
vhtomit, I have to respectfully disagree. The reason that we have the mess we do now is because judges are interpreting the Constitution. That isn't their task. Their task is to determine if new laws conform to the Constitution or not. The Constitution needs no interpretation. It is intended to be taken literally. If that is done we don't have a problem with partisanship.
Exactly right on. Unfortunately, there are too many enemies of our Constitution.
Defending it is a full time job of the people who love it as it is.
Aug 15, 2019 22:32:18 #
Wrangler wrote:
The dems threatened the Supreme Court by demanding it “heal itself or face restructuring.”
My question is “Does heal itself mean walk like a dog on a leash?”
My question is “Does heal itself mean walk like a dog on a leash?”
Yes.
Aug 15, 2019 22:46:24 #
Aug 15, 2019 22:49:07 #
btbg wrote:
vhtomit, I have to respectfully disagree. The reason that we have the mess we do now is because judges are interpreting the Constitution. That isn't their task. Their task is to determine if new laws conform to the Constitution or not. The Constitution needs no interpretation. It is intended to be taken literally. If that is done we don't have a problem with partisanship.
I think my early post. I said justices interpret constitutionally, some don’t . I did not do as good a job to explain my thought as you.
Aug 15, 2019 23:53:00 #
yhtomit wrote:
I think my early post. I said justices interpret constitutionally, some don’t . I did not do as good a job to explain my thought as you.
I didn't think that we disagreed philosophically. I think you fell into a liberal trap because they do believe that the Constitution should be interpreted rather than merely looking at laws to see if they conform to the Constitution.
Unfortunately even some conservative judges fall into that trap and the other area they fall short is too many conservative judges believe that because there was a previous ruling it is now settled law even when the previous ruling was clearly extra-constitutional. They need to have the balls to overturn bad rulings.
Aug 15, 2019 23:59:34 #
LWW wrote:
Read the tenth amendment.
Well, which is it? The states, or the people? That is the fundamental flaw of the constitution.
"States rights" is just a euphemism for stripping people of their rights. States cannot be trusted.
Aug 16, 2019 04:16:18 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
jcboy3 wrote:
Well, which is it? The states, or the people? That is the fundamental flaw of the constitution.
"States rights" is just a euphemism for stripping people of their rights. States cannot be trusted.
"States rights" is just a euphemism for stripping people of their rights. States cannot be trusted.
Why do you lie?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.