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.
The poll asks whether the USSC is "too conservative" or "too liberal" or "just about right". That makes the assumption that in order to be "just about right", you can't be conservative or liberal, since the Court is somewhere between the two poles right now.
But it's a false assumption. The Constitution itself is not halfway between our present "liberal" and "conservative" positions. It is strongly on the conservative side. It strongly limits the Fed govt to only certain powers, and forbids all others to the Fed. The states and lower govts can do the rest if they want, but they don't have to.
And the USSC's job is to preserve and protect that the Constitution says and means... whether the justices like it or not.
I have to wonder what the poll results would be if Americans in general were asked:
"How do you think the Supreme Court is doing in protecting and enforcing what the Constitution says?
* Too much
* Too little
* Just about right"
I think you mean G. W. Bush's selection as president, by the Supreme Court in 2000.
The USSC didn't select him. The voters did.
The USSC merely pointed out what rules the voters had put into place long before the election, and told the voters how those rules applied to Owlgore's constant demands for delays, recounts, etc., for only small segments of the electorate, and far past the deadlines established by the States and the Fed govt.
Gore was trying to violate those rules. The USSC told him he was out of line, and to knock it off after a certain date. And it was absolutely right to decide the way it did.
The First Amendment bans government regulation of speech, period. It doesn't say "except for corporations". And Romney was correct when he (albeit somewhat clumsily) said, "Corporations are people." More precisely, corporations are made up of people. The government may not ban speech, whether it's by one individual, or a group of individuals such as a corporation.
Liberals used to believe in free speech. It's a shame that they don't anymore.
exactly right. sorry but to suggest limiting the money given to a candidate or party is not limiting free speech is in fact wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
The USSC didn't select him. The voters did.
The USSC merely pointed out what rules the voters had put into place long before the election, and told the voters how those rules applied to Owlgore's constant demands for delays, recounts, etc., for only small segments of the electorate, and far past the deadlines established by the States and the Fed govt.
Gore was trying to violate those rules. The USSC told him he was out of line, and to knock it off after a certain date. And it was absolutely right to decide the way it did.
actually it wasnt gore, but rather the florida supreme court that the scotus slapped down for trying to rewrite florida election law from the bench.
The law is free from passion. The thought the those judges would decide on a case based on their own ideology makes me nauseous.
10 years or so ago I heard audio of a supreme court judge, I don't remember who, saying that he thought it wise to consider foreign law when making his decisions. On American constitutional questions. Takes your breath away.
How is money speech? Billionaires manipulating the political system would NEVER be supported by the Founders.
And how do you know that? The Founders were mostly wealthy men themselves. And multi-billion dollar conglomerates didn't exist back then.
Giving money certainly is a form of speech. When you donate to a candidate, you are, in effect, endorsing that candidate for office. The Constitution says nothing about banning groups of people (in this case, corporations) from giving money to candidates.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,587,616 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Yes, with the appointment of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, and hopefully a few more like that in the next 7 years, the agenda of the Supreme Court is slowly swinging back toward protecting, defending, and enforcing what the U.S. Constitution actually says and means.
It's about time. What will the liberals do when their agenda starts getting thrown out like the unconstitutional, undemocratic fifth-column scheme it is?
Have to wonder what the poll results would be if Americans in general were asked:
"How do you think the Supreme Court is doing in protecting and enforcing what the Constitution says?
* Too much
* Too little
* Just about right"
Gorsuch provides a long-term, conservative majority for decades to come. The geezers are the lefties. Gorsuch replaces the equally conservative wonderful late SC Justice Scalia, and our new version is just 48 years old.
MAGA
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.
