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 would like to see a list of issues that folks here consider important to them (may or may not affecting them directly personally), which may be voted by the Supreme Court, and which are the reasons they are concerned about SCOTUS appointments. Thanks. This is pure curiosity.
I'm concerned that a liberal supreme court will let the flood gates open to more invasion from the southern border, putting intruders before actual citizens. And that they'll let any liberal president have too much unilateral power; this is literally how dictatorships get started. Don't take away OUR liberties.
And mess @ conservatives being criticized when they are upholding the constitution. Conservatives aren't trying to take away the first amendment like some people who think political correctness has to be everywhere.
And mess @ conservatives being criticized when they are upholding the constitution. Conservatives aren't trying to take away the first amendment like some people who think political correctness has to be everywhere.
No, they're trying to take it away by jamming christianity down everyone else's throat with a broomstick with all their damned "thou shalt not" laws.
Spare me the "conservatives are just trying to save the Constitution" crap, please. I've been watching politics for almost a half century, and I don't buy that for a second. Today's conservatives have shown me no interest at all in "upholding" the Constitution; they're just trying to interpret it in the way that fits their own tiny-minded, authoritarian, evangelical ideology and force the rest of the country to live in accordance with that corrupt interpretation. And they don't have the guts to just come out and admit it.
No, they're trying to take it away by jamming christianity down everyone else's throat with a broomstick with all their damned "thou shalt not" laws.
Spare me the "conservatives are just trying to save the Constitution" crap, please. I've been watching politics for almost a half century, and I don't buy that for a second. Today's conservatives have shown me no interest at all in "upholding" the Constitution; they're just trying to interpret it in the way that fits their own tiny-minded, authoritarian, evangelical ideology and force the rest of the country to live in accordance with that corrupt interpretation. And they don't have the guts to just come out and admit it.
If that refers to me, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, nor have I given you any reason to think it of me. In fact, given the context in which you parrot... er, I'm sorry, use it... I strongly suspect you have no clue what it means, and you just heard it on one of those loony radio programs and thought it would make you sound sophisticated and literate.
Got a news flash for you - you're not Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, and you can't pull it off without at least googling to find out what the words you use mean.
No, they're trying to take it away by jamming christianity down everyone else's throat with a broomstick with all their damned "thou shalt not" laws.
Spare me the "conservatives are just trying to save the Constitution" crap, please. I've been watching politics for almost a half century, and I don't buy that for a second. Today's conservatives have shown me no interest at all in "upholding" the Constitution; they're just trying to interpret it in the way that fits their own tiny-minded, authoritarian, evangelical ideology and force the rest of the country to live in accordance with that corrupt interpretation. And they don't have the guts to just come out and admit it.
Exactly, the only part of the constitution they actually care about is the 2nd. They would throw the rest of it in the trash if they could.
I would like to see a list of issues that folks here consider important to them (may or may not affecting them directly personally), which may be voted by the Supreme Court, and which are the reasons they are concerned about SCOTUS appointments. Thanks. This is pure curiosity.
I think the Justice Scalia said it best......
“If you’re going to be a good and faithful judge, you have to resign yourself to the fact that you’re not always going to like the conclusions you reach. If you like them all the time, you’re probably doing something wrong.” – Justice Scalia
He struck down criminal statutes as too vague because they didn’t define the crime in question with sufficient specificity to give defendants notice of what conduct is prohibited. And, he wrote a series of magnificent opinions over the years voting to strike down overly intrusive searches – from GPS surveillance to DNA database searches to drug tests – on the grounds that they called to mind the hated general warrants and writs of assistance that the framers of the Fourth Amendment meant to prohibit.
He was very pro-privacy, so long as the invasion was to your home. Scalia wrote the opinion in Florida v. Jardines, a case which declared that a drug-sniffing dog was too advanced a technology to be used on someone’s porch without a warrant.
If technology breached the integrity of your house walls, Scalia was not going to let anyone use it without a warrant. We can’t know for sure, but the very narrow decision in Florida v Riley, allowing surveillance from a helicopter, seems very Scalia. Law enforcement didn’t need a warrant because it was in public airspace and the helicopter didn’t interfere with the use of the home. If the regular public couldn’t have gone there, neither could the police. If drone surveillance had ended up at the Supreme Court before his death, you could bet Scalia would have been asking all of these questions. (Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court)
Scalia’s vote was decisive in the ruling against the Texas state law against flag burning: A five-justice majority ruled that the First Amendment protected the right to burn the American flag. An incensed Congress quickly passed a federal statute banning flag burning nationwide—a law which the same five justices struck down the very next term.
While the justice has repeatedly endorsed public schools’ right to censor their students. Few would have predicted Scalia’s response to a California law banning the sale of violent video games to children. He wrote a lively majority opinion for just five justices, holding that a state could not constitutionally forbid children from accessing violent expression. Two justices held that states could sometimes censor violent video games; two justices held that states always could. But Scalia’s opinion garnered the necessary votes to become the law of the land.
Justice Scalia, like most of the justices, takes each issue on its merits, and rules by their almost never wavering interpretation of the constitution (the constitution was a compromise, and even the founding fathers took different interpretations of the final product). He did not side with either political party, as the parties have changed radically over time, the job of the justice has not.
Unlike some of the supporters of political decisions, the justices take their work seriously, but it does not interfere with them being human beings, as shown by Justice Scalias long term friendship with Justice Ginsburg, and (as reports have said) him suggesting Justice Kagen to the president to be appointed to the court.
Many on both sides of the political spectrum, could learn a few lessons from all of the justices of the court.
Things may come to the court, and the court will rule. Guessing what issue might come up or how a judge would rule, is putting the cart before the horse.
Last edited by plannine; 02-21-2016 at 07:36 AM..
Reason: added the word almost
I'm concerned that a conservative Supreme Court will hand everything over to corporate interests and the wealthy at the expense of ordinary Americans. Just look at Citizens United.
No, they're trying to take it away by jamming christianity down everyone else's throat with a broomstick with all their damned "thou shalt not" laws.
Spare me the "conservatives are just trying to save the Constitution" crap, please. I've been watching politics for almost a half century, and I don't buy that for a second. Today's conservatives have shown me no interest at all in "upholding" the Constitution; they're just trying to interpret it in the way that fits their own tiny-minded, authoritarian, evangelical ideology and force the rest of the country to live in accordance with that corrupt interpretation. And they don't have the guts to just come out and admit it.
What part of the Constitution are the conservatives trying to interpret in the way that fits their own interpretation?
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.
