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.
Both sides screen judges to fit their agenda, most importantly we need qualified judges regardless of their leanings. Why do you claim only "the left" is guilty of bias, how did we end up with Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
I want a fair judge regardless of their leanings but this theme that only the great "textualists" truly understand the constitution is complete nonsense. The claim that judges are "legislating from the bench" when decisions don't go your way are tiresome.
Come on!
Scalia was and Thomas is a Constitutional originalist and strict constructionist.
Believing that cases should be reviewed against the original text of the Constitution is not a bias.
The divide is between (1) justices and people who believe that we ought to follow our Constitution strictly and interpret it according to the words written and (2) justices and people who believe the Constitution is a "living document" that can be interpreted according to conventions and norms and trends of the moment.
Of course all people have bias. But, I am confident that an originalist approach and strict interpretation of our Constitution eliminates most biases and allows for a more objective review.
I don't believe that this can be denied. If you allow for continually changing interpretations, bias will play a much more significant role in the review process.
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!
You've created a question that can't be answered.
The SCOTUS's opinions are the final arbiter of what the constitution means. They decide what each word, nuance, phrase, of the constitution applies to each case they are reviewing and then they give,...…..an opinion.
Their opinion becomes constitutional law until another judicial authority rules otherwise
That's why Rove V Wade is constitutional today based on the SCOTUS interpretation of the applicable constitutional principles but may not be constitutional next year when a lawsuit is brought to them for consideration.
Next year after installing a new member, The 9 justices may see the application of Roe v Wade using different constitutional principles and find it unconstitutional.
Saying the opinions of the SCOTUS run contrary to the meaning of the constitution is a contradiction on it's face.
It's all determined by the opinion of the 9 dude.
The opener asked "Since when are judges ruling based on their opinion and not based on the law/constitution?" Well, I ask "since when do some mother-in-laws act as though the world revolves around them?"
Scalia was and Thomas is a Constitutional originalist and strict constructionist.
Believing that cases should be reviewed against the original text of the Constitution is not a bias.
The divide is between (1) justices and people who believe that we ought to follow our Constitution strictly and interpret it according to the words written and (2) justices and people who believe the Constitution is a "living document" that can be interpreted according to conventions and norms and trends of the moment.
Of course all people have bias. But, I am confident that an originalist approach and strict interpretation of our Constitution eliminates most biases and allows for a more objective review.
I don't believe that this can be denied. If you allow for continually changing interpretations, bias will play a much more significant role in the review process.
If "an originalist approach and strict interpretation of our Constitution" is all that is needed, why were any of the amendments necessary? Or, were they?
If "an originalist approach and strict interpretation of our Constitution" is all that is needed, why were any of the amendments necessary? Or, were they?
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.
What a joke. Republicans are constantly obsessed with driving fear. They control the presidency, the House, the Senate and the Supreme Court and they FEAR? Is that going to be the driving force in 2020? "Yes, we own everything, we control everything but everybody needs to be afraid?"
Yes, the right wing Supreme Court will definitely change things like abortion. It will almost certainly go to the states. My state passed abortion rights outside of Roe V. Wade but there are four states that have a pending law that should Roe V. Wade be overturned, abortion will automatically be illegal in their states. Those states include Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota. Seven states have laws to restrict abortion to the maximum the law will allow so if Roe V. Wade is overturned, abortion will be illegal there too, they include Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, North Dakota and Ohio.
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)
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.