Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:26 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,122,688 times
Reputation: 2037

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Reagan nominated him.

Do they all take an oath LIKE THE PRESIDENT to preserve, protect and defend the constitution?
Supreme Court judges are the ultimate arbiters of constitutionality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:29 AM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,122,688 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Not only that, they emote; they don't think. They make emotional decisions, not rational or logical decisions. The male liberal Justices are guilty of that, as well.
That's a convenient position to take

Quote:
I made this point in the SCOTUS abortion ruling thread that WAY too few even considered...

SCOTUS just set the horrible legal precedent of striking down women's 14th Amendment right to equal protection.
How is that striking down the 14th amendment?

Quote:
Exactly. And that's what SCOTUS Justices are SUPPOSED to do, NOT legislate from the bench in emotionally-driven fits of irrational judicial activism.
Another convenient position: they're wrong when they do something I don't agree with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:29 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,877,895 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Supreme Court judges are the ultimate arbiters of constitutionality.
What recourse do Americans have when a SCOTUS ruling clearly violates the Constitution?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 10:36 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,060 posts, read 44,877,895 times
Reputation: 13718
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
That's a convenient position to take

How is that striking down the 14th amendment?
Ambulatory Surgery Centers have to meet state-legislated minimum medical and facilities standards, but abortion centers that perform surgical procedures on women don't. That's a violation of women's 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

Since SCOTUS has clearly struck down women's 14th Amendment right to equal protection, what's next? State-legislated minimum wage only applies to men? State law protecting consumers only applies to men? Etc.? There's literally no end to the horrible unintended consequences of striking down women's 14th Amendment right to equal protection.

Quote:
Another convenient position: they're wrong when they do something I don't agree with.
They're wrong when they specifically violate a right enumerated by the Constitution, which they did in this latest ruling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 11:44 AM
 
2,851 posts, read 3,476,238 times
Reputation: 1200
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
That's a convenient position to take


Another convenient position: they're wrong when they do something I don't agree with.
Have you read the Heller decision and the dissent? The decision brought in historical facts, documents, reasoning, debates prior to ratification, etc. The dissent basically said "gun crime... safety... not protected...". Now we have a law going for safety and protection but it infringes on the right of the woman, so a magical turnabout in the definition of "infringe".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 03:45 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,621 posts, read 19,180,106 times
Reputation: 21743
Quote:
Originally Posted by lcmdlksp View Post
He's right. This document needs to be scrapped as it's no longer viable.
The Constitution is timeless. That's the beauty of it. Contrary to what Posner says, it does cover technology, but Posner is of limited mind and too dumb to see it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 04:25 PM
 
8,275 posts, read 7,952,048 times
Reputation: 12122
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC View Post
Reagan nominated him.
I find that very interesting. Why is it whenever a conservative nominates a judge it is always a crapshoot as to whether they will interpret the law and Constitution according from a conservative perspective? But on the other side, it seems that liberal Presidents have had a 100% record when it comes to their judges interpreting from the left.

Can anyone think of a judge that a liberal President nominated a judge that turned out to be conservative?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 04:34 PM
 
6,575 posts, read 6,745,260 times
Reputation: 8794
Quote:
Originally Posted by War Beagle View Post
I find that very interesting. Why is it whenever a conservative nominates a judge it is always a crapshoot as to whether they will interpret the law and Constitution according from a conservative perspective? But on the other side, it seems that liberal Presidents have had a 100% record when it comes to their judges interpreting from the left.

Can anyone think of a judge that a liberal President nominated a judge that turned out to be conservative?
Only one comes to mind. President Kennedy nominated his friend Byron "Whizzer" White. White turned more conservative over the years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2016, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
14,361 posts, read 9,794,304 times
Reputation: 6663
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033 View Post
Supreme Court judges are the ultimate arbiters of constitutionality.


Constitutionality means impartiality, right?


When has the SCOTUS been impartial, at least in our lifetimes?

They kicked Obama's sh|t back to the lower courts... definition: this is so illegal. we want someone else to arbitrate it!

"arbiters of constitutionality"

How cute is that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 07:30 AM
 
4,899 posts, read 3,556,787 times
Reputation: 4471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Richard Posner: 'No value' in studying the U.S. Constitution - Washington Times

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.
this judge needs to resign or be fired immediately. he took a vow to uphold the constitution and should not spend another minute as a self-admitted fraud.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:00 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top