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.
Separation of powers. The court is supposed to determine if a law is Constitutional. Even Constitutional laws can be amended........by Congress with a Constitutional Amendment.
The SCOTUS Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) decision which held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens paved the way for Congress to amend the Constitution?
In Koretmatsu v. United States (1944) Here, the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, finding that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the individual rights of American citizens.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.
& so on ...
If "an originalist approach and strict interpretation of our Constitution" is all that is necessary, why bother with Congress, or common sense for that matter?
The SCOTUS Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) decision which held that African Americans, whether free men or slaves, could not be considered American citizens paved the way for Congress to amend the Constitution?
Nope but it was amended. "Originalist" doesn't mean they rule on the Constitution as it was originially written but they rule on it as it is written.
It's the democrat party always playing class warfare and telling minorities how oppressed they are thus they deserve extra benefits which only serves to make people resent each other more. The day of actually hiring people based on qualifications is over.. now a days you need "token" minorities to fill quotas, regardless of whether there are better candidates suited for the job, and they always get away with a lot more infractions without getting fired, as well.
Things should be mostly left up to the states. Honestly even most republicans couldn't care less if there was gay marriage in their state.. I don't know why this particular one is even an issue for republicans.. news flash to politicians... only a few vocal religious nutcases even care about the issue.. at least half your base doesn't, so stop trying to criminalize gay marriage in your states. Be the party of freedom you claim to be and let people live the way they want as long as it's not harming anyone else.
Honestly if democrats would lighten off on the gun issue I'd probably switch my vote to them for the majority of the time. Guns are the reason I don't vote democrat, and the war on drugs is the reason I don't vote republican.. statists be statists. Well, off to find some magic mushrooms. (just kidding)
Re: underlined: in Plessy v Ferguson the SCOTUS decision DID leave that 'thing' up to the states:
The Court's famous "separate but equal" ruling upheld state segregation laws. In doing so, the Court made sure that the gains of the post-Civil War reconstruction era were quickly replaced by decades of Jim Crow laws.
They do not deny that women have a right to vote and so on. Much of the Constitution is still as it was originally written. If you want that changed, change it.
06-30-2018, 09:40 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
People seem to have a very misguided view of how clear the law actually is. It is not a giant decision tree where you put in the inputs and get a definite output. The law a guide with so many caveats and "if"s and "might"s and "likely"s that who the judge is does matter in all but the most routine of cases.
But lets not forget that the conservatives already on the court, mere days ago, opted to say that an old law was controlling over a newer law just so they could have the desired outcome. Let's not forget that mere days ago, the conservatives on the court decided that a factual message about the availability of abortion services could not be mandated, despite a prior ruling that similar factual message about adoption and support services could be mandated.
At the end of the day, things that go to the supreme court have arrived there because they're not easy. The law isn't completely clear. The question is not do you want an "originalist" or whatever BS noble-sounding name they like to give themselves. It's do you want a justice who believes in individual freedom or not. Do you want a justice who believes in privacy or not? Do you want a judge who believes in equal treatment for everyone or not?
Any who does believe in those things should be very concerned about Trump getting a second pick. He's already made it clear that he's not looking for a fair justice. He's looking for someone to go in an push his agenda.
They do not deny that women have a right to vote and so on. Much of the Constitution is still as it was originally written. If you want that changed, change it.
Quote:
Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[4] Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:
The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Scalia, are associated with this view.
The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Scalia, are associated with this view.
...
Being as Scalia would have NEVER argued that women do not have the right to vote he would have ruled on the 19th Amendment as written.
since the judges son does banking favors for Donald trump.
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.
