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.
Well, IF rulings should be based on law/Constitution, WHY does the right want every appointment to the SCOTUS to be a Conservative? WHAT is your evidence that only they will base their rulings on the law/Constitution?
They want them to be a strict constitutionalists. Conservatives believe in the constitution...
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.
That particular prior ruling was unConstitutional, so SCOTUS was correct in reversing it. Again, for those who are having a REALLY difficult time grasping how very simple that fact truly is... Local/state laws cannot supersede Constitutional Rights. That's what California was attempting to do. That's unConstitutional. Supremacy Clause, Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Last edited by InformedConsent; 06-30-2018 at 10:31 AM..
You do realize, don’t you, if they had put him up they could have just said no. He was not getting put in. I would expect the same thing to happen if someone, say Ginsberg, were to need replacing during an active presidential election period. It gave the people a very rare say in what type of court member they wanted. Many, many people I know, with great reluctance, voted for Trump because of that vacant seat.
As a side note, I never understood why Ginsberg didn’t step down during Obama’s first two years when Democrats had the Senate majority. She, like Scalia, could only be replaced by a truly likeminded individual when the president and senate were a particular party. Now she has to hope mother nature doesn’t decide her term is over while Trump is in. She isn’t looking all that hot and has already had at least one go around with cancer.
Then how did 4 Conservative justices decide that doing business with a private company voided our privacy rights in the cell phone decision?
Good grief. You've been told this, repeatedly. Read the fine print when you buy a product or contract for service. It states exactly that to which you are consenting by buying/using the product/service. Caveat Emptor.
Just some examples of private industries that share your data with the government, and it's all in the legal disclosures to which you consent when you buy/lease/use products/services:
Auto dealerships (title, registration, insurance verification, etc.)
Cell phone companies/service providers (How do you think your cell phone number gets added to the National Public Warning System, including emergency messages directly from POTUS?)
Etc.
06-30-2018, 10:44 AM
i7pXFLbhE3gq
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
That particular prior ruling was unConstitutional, so SCOTUS was correct in reversing it. Again, for those who are having a REALLY difficult time grasping how very simple that fact truly is... Local/state laws cannot supersede Constitutional Rights. That's what California was attempting to do. That's unConstitutional. Supremacy Clause, Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The prior ruling I was referring to was Casey. The majority took great efforts to twist and turn and contort to pretend that this case was somehow different.
Lay off the bold and spend some time reading. You can scream and hem and haw about constitutional rights all you want. The fact of the matter is that you've completely failed to even attempt to make a constitutional argument. Just screaming "Constitutional Rights" does not constitute an argument.
The prior ruling I was referring to was Casey. The majority took great efforts to twist and turn and contort to pretend that this case was somehow different.
Lay off the bold and spend some time reading. You can scream and hem and haw about constitutional rights all you want. The fact of the matter is that you've completely failed to even attempt to make a constitutional argument. Just screaming "Constitutional Rights" does not constitute an argument.
The Supremacy Clause does, which is what I posted. Read it. Comprehend it. California state law cannot supersede Constitutional Rights. Period.
Fr'instance, how did the legal fictitious 'persons' i.e. immortal Corporations acquire the same rights as mere mortal persons? Beginning with applying the 14th Amendment to the legal fictitious immortal 'persons' more commonly known as Corpoations:
Quote:
The 14th Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 to grant emancipated slaves full citizenship, states, “No state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person ... the equal protection of the laws.”
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.
