Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“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),” he wrote. “Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.”
Judges like that have no business sitting on the bench and need to be impeached.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it is timeless. The Constitution does address the culture and technology of the 21st Century, but this judge is just too blind to see.
Judges like that have no business sitting on the bench and need to be impeached.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it is timeless. The Constitution does address the culture and technology of the 21st Century, but this judge is just too blind to see.
Here in CA, the PD's, DA's and Judges mostly have the same (dis)regard for the Constitution.
THAT ↓↓↓ (except it isn't Liberals, it's the progressives posing as Liberals)
Liberals have the same disregard for the Constitution
As do conservatives. The US constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. That is not because of any deficiency in the document it's self but because of a Supreme court that is near totally political in nature. Constitutional issues are supposed to be decided by legal arguments not by partisan political positions. Therefore the US Supreme Court is not a law court at all but just a hack, partisan political kangaroo court that decides matters due to politics and not by legal and constitutional arguments.
You know, as a citizen, he's not wrong (not objectively anyway). But as a judge, he way wrong. Possibly as wrong as he can be.
He, as an individual, has every legal right to disagree with every word of the constitution and while I or anyone else can freely disagree with him, as of now (according to the constitution he disagrees with) he can't be told he's not allowed to have that opinion. But regardless, he's a judge and is obligated to uphold it, even if he disagrees. It's why Kim Davis should have been handing out marriage certificates to homosexuals and it's why Obama should be enforcing immigration laws instead of doing whatever it is he's doing. Obama can disagree with the laws if he wants. Kim Davis can disagree with the laws if she wants. Richard Posner can disagree with the laws if he wants. But, despite that, all three have a legal and ethical obligation to follow and uphold them even in the face of disagreement.
It's how being a civil servant works. And should work.
You know, as a citizen, he's not wrong (not objectively anyway). But as a judge, he way wrong. Possibly as wrong as he can be.
He, as an individual, has every legal right to disagree with every word of the constitution and while I or anyone else can freely disagree with him, as of now (according to the constitution he disagrees with) he can't be told he's not allowed to have that opinion. But regardless, he's a judge and is obligated to uphold it, even if he disagrees. It's why Kim Davis should have been handing out marriage certificates to homosexuals and it's why Obama should be enforcing immigration laws instead of doing whatever it is he's doing. Obama can disagree with the laws if he wants. Kim Davis can disagree with the laws if she wants. Richard Posner can disagree with the laws if he wants. But, despite that, all three have a legal and ethical obligation to follow and uphold them even in the face of disagreement.
It's how being a civil servant works. And should work.
You are absolutely correct. I should have put that qualifier in my post.
An individual can believe what they like. But upon taking the oath, personal opinion is checked at the door. When o have some free time, I'm going to review some of this judges rulings.
Kim Davis is in my state. Although I disagree with her not executing her (elected) office, I will give her credit for taking her contempt charge without a fight.
To this day, she doesn't sign the certs. She has her assistants sign them and it's been ruled acceptable.
Technically we don't follow it, furthermore we were decreed "citizens" afterward, and most of it applies to sovereign people anyway. And lastly it really as a contract, was only signed by, well, those who signed it. I am not property of the "corporation" of the United States, and I have not entered into any agreement with it, and wouldn't seeing as it initiates force against individuals for its own benefit and serves only to destroy human freedom. Why would I sign away my natural rights to an aggressive predatory institution?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
