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.
Not interested in you BS. No company would survive with fine print that said they would freely turn your records over to the government. Not a one.
And yet, they do. Go figure.
Examples:
Auto dealerships
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.
You balk only because you don't believe in personal responsibility. That's BS.
Republicans have more to lose because they are on the side of bigotry and making the rich richer.
Neither is in the Constitution so why are you so afraid of Trump nominating a Constitutionalist Judge? Why would you rather give up your individual liberties (the Bill of Rights, otherwise known as the first 10 Amendments) instead of wishing to preserve your and everyone else's Constitutional Rights?
The left wants every judge eliminated or prevented from being sworn in/ appointed, unless they are a leftie.
But shouldn’t a judge rule based on law/constitution and not based on personal political or personal agenda?
It seems the left is giving away their true colors!
I certainly agree that a judge, whether state or federal, should not being his or her personal or political 'agenda' to the job.
Of course, you do have such individuals. A person may hold a personal conviction, for instance, that abortion is against their moral beliefs. In accordance with that conviction, said individual will shape a judicial opinion to conform to their belief.
In states, such as Texas, where we elect judges, said judges run as a Republican or Democrat. I have noted during my life that those running as a Republican will advertise how they will rule in certain instances, while Democrats will advertise how they would rule. It is unseemly, but it is a fact.
It is easy for a layman to speak of basing a legal decision on 'law and/or Constitution', but in practice it is a bit harder.
As for the Constitution, Judges are dealing with an 18th century document. Fortunately, the Amendments were drafted in broad strokes. "Congress shall not infringe' upon the freedom of speech, for instance.
By necessity, the Courts have had to evolve the meaning of 'speech', since what constitutes 'speech' today is vastly different from 'speech' of the 18th century. However, the Courts have kept certain ideas constant: the First Amendment means 'freedom of speech' from government interference, not private individuals. Of course, even then, there are limits that have evolved over the past two centuries (slander laws, libel, etc.).
I am planning, in the future, to start a thread in which I present some 'issues of the day', so that posters may express their opinion on how the issue should be resolved, using their knowledge of Constitutional law. I shall do so in a manner where the reader will not be able to easily find the case on google, and so get an inkling of how they think they should respond.
Sadly, I feel that many herein tend to base their conclusions about an outcome of a decision on whether the decision is applauded (or written) by 'conservatives' or 'liberals' judges/justices. We have had instances over the years, on this forum, where some person will start a thread supporting a decision, without having read the decision, or having thought about the implications of the decision. I am usually pleased to link to the actual decision, inviting said poster to read and then comment. I am often disappointed in not getting a reply.
For instance, I may ask, in future, if CD denizens believe in the 'right to privacy'. OP, do you believe in the right to privacy? Think carefully about your answer.
I certainly agree that a judge, whether state or federal, should not being his or her personal or political 'agenda' to the job.
Of course, you do have such individuals. A person may hold a personal conviction, for instance, that abortion is against their moral beliefs. In accordance with that conviction, said individual will shape a judicial opinion to conform to their belief.
In states, such as Texas, where we elect judges, said judges run as a Republican or Democrat. I have noted during my life that those running as a Republican will advertise how they will rule in certain instances, while Democrats will advertise how they would rule. It is unseemly, but it is a fact.
It is easy for a layman to speak of basing a legal decision on 'law and/or Constitution', but in practice it is a bit harder.
As for the Constitution, Judges are dealing with an 18th century document. Fortunately, the Amendments were drafted in broad strokes. "Congress shall not infringe' upon the freedom of speech, for instance.
That (shall not infringe) actually isn't in the First Amendment. It DOES say that Congress cannot make laws that abridge Free Speech. Are there any Federal Laws that abridge Free Speech? And, of course, that all goes out the window in regards to local/state laws as the Supremacy Clause clearly indicates that local/state laws cannot supersede Constitutional Rights.
Quote:
By necessity, the Courts have had to evolve the meaning of 'speech', since what constitutes 'speech' today is vastly different from 'speech' of the 18th century. However, the Courts have kept certain ideas constant: the First Amendment means 'freedom of speech' from government interference, not private individuals. Of course, even then, there are limits that have evolved over the past two centuries (slander laws, libel, etc.).
I think it is crazy how the Left is flipping out that Trump gets to pick another judge for the SC. They are having melt downs that this will be the end of America as we know it. Roe V Wade is history, Guns will be unrestricted, and all sorts of terrible things will happen for at least a generation.
The Left is unhinged over this but I suspect if Hillary had won and she was picking judges the media would be silent on criticism but praising her to no end.
We have seen Federal judges block Trump on many things and the rulings certainly seem political and that is not right.
A judge should be applying the law to a case and not interpreting it to endorse an agenda by a political party.
We saw this happen over Trumps travel pause from dangerous areas of the world and the Left judge shopped until they found one that would torpedo the pause and choose party affiliation over our safety.
We need balance in the courts especially with the way the Left has been acting. I fear the day they get back into the WH.
When Trump is hauled away in chains all his wrong doing s will be overturned. . The. Republicans associated with Russian activity will also be out.
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.
__________________
When I post in bold red that is moderator action and, per the TOS, can only be discussed through Direct Message.
The left wants every judge eliminated or prevented from being sworn in/ appointed, unless they are a leftie.
But shouldn’t a judge rule based on law/constitution and not based on personal political or personal agenda?
It seems the left is giving away their true colors!
Since when are SC Justice's rulings based on opinions?
Since human beings were appointed to fill the positions.
The travel ban decision echoes some of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history
The logic SCOTUS used to uphold the travel ban would justify Japanese internment camps.
Quote:
Three times in American history, the Supreme Court has been asked to speak to a law, neutral on its face, yet rooted in a popular hatred or intolerance of minorities. Three times, it has chosen to ignore the real reasons for the law. ...
I think it is crazy how the Left is flipping out that Trump gets to pick another judge for the SC. They are having melt downs that this will be the end of America as we know it. Roe V Wade is history, Guns will be unrestricted, and all sorts of terrible things will happen for at least a generation.
The Left is unhinged over this but I suspect if Hillary had won and she was picking judges the media would be silent on criticism but praising her to no end.
We have seen Federal judges block Trump on many things and the rulings certainly seem political and that is not right.
A judge should be applying the law to a case and not interpreting it to endorse an agenda by a political party.
We saw this happen over Trumps travel pause from dangerous areas of the world and the Left judge shopped until they found one that would torpedo the pause and choose party affiliation over our safety.
We need balance in the courts especially with the way the Left has been acting. I fear the day they get back into the WH.
When Scalia suddenly died it was Mitch McConnell and Grassley doing the flipping. Restore balance, if you look at the recent close decisions it has been fairly one sided. But I am all in favor of balance, nominate Merrick Garland again and we will be back to where we were. Still lopsided in favor of conservative opinions but more balanced.
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.
If we take that logic to its extreme, we could be considered in an active election period now, as Trump is already campaigning for 2020.
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.
