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 06-29-2018, 08:20 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,912 posts, read 25,835,547 times
Reputation: 15447

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rigby06 View Post
My answer in is RED, but I mostly agree with you.
Balance is very important, I would prefer that the courts not become completely politicized but that's where we are headed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2018, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Asia
2,768 posts, read 1,570,110 times
Reputation: 3049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2018, 08:37 PM
 
Location: FL
20,702 posts, read 12,458,450 times
Reputation: 5452
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catgirl64 View Post
Merrick Garland.

We haven't forgotten, and we aren't going to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2018, 10:41 PM
 
Location: Texas
37,941 posts, read 17,744,268 times
Reputation: 10366
Quote:
Originally Posted by LifeIsGood01 View Post
Republicans have more to lose because they are on the side of bigotry and making the rich richer.
Joy Reid and Rev Al aren't spokespeople for the Republicans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2018, 10:47 PM
 
Location: Arizona
13,778 posts, read 9,614,552 times
Reputation: 7485
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentlebee View Post
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.

Last edited by mohawkx; 06-29-2018 at 10:58 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:32 AM
 
6,835 posts, read 2,375,528 times
Reputation: 2727
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?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:39 AM
 
79,903 posts, read 43,911,701 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike View Post
And how did a corporation become the same as a living human when it came to rights?
A corporation is nothing more than a group of people pooling their resources. No different than the DNC or RNC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:41 AM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,876,524 times
Reputation: 3461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Salmonburgher View Post
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.
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:46 AM
 
79,903 posts, read 43,911,701 times
Reputation: 17184
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2018, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Sector 001
15,932 posts, read 12,196,344 times
Reputation: 16097
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
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.

https://www.guttmacher.org/state-pol...cy-absence-roe
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)
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 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