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.
Whenever I've watched an interview with them, the interviewer usually asks a question that assumes running their household must be difficult re their different perspectives. In the interviews I've seen, James always replies, smiling broadly...always something to the effect that 'our house is not a democracy, I do as I am told'.
The supreme court needs to be balanced to represent all of us....not just one party or one ideology. All the justices know the constitution but interpret it a little differently. And that's a good thing. And that's what makes our country great. If the supreme court was all liberal or all conservative it would adversely affect us all. Many would like and many wouldn't. It would be horrible for this country.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,860 posts, read 3,298,444 times
Reputation: 9146
Quote:
Originally Posted by natalie469
The supreme court needs to be balanced to represent all of us....not just one party or one ideology. All the justices know the constitution but interpret it a little differently. And that's a good thing. And that's what makes our country great. If the supreme court was all liberal or all conservative it would adversely affect us all. Many would like and many wouldn't. It would be horrible for this country.
Actually the liberals want judges that legislate from the bench. Make up the constitution as they go. They want judges who vote on their feelings. Conservatives on the other hand want a judge that follows the constitution and follows the law.
Actually the liberals want judges that legislate from the bench. Make up the constitution as they go. They want judges who vote on their feelings. Conservatives on the other hand want a judge that follows the constitution and follows the law.
All the current judges follow the constitution. And Garland would have too.
We desperately need a constitutional amendment either creating a 20/25 year term limit or mandatory age limit for federal judges at all levels. When our country was formed I'm sure they never imagined a day would come when judges could potentially serve for 50+ years. Back then most people didn't even live 50 years.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
John Roberts can retire, he's proven he's open to blackmail and his rulings are up for sale.
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.
