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.
What is your strict definition of a constitutionalist.
Sometimes people believe their rights are above the constitution.
Well, they'd be mistaken. Constitutional Rights are enumerated very clearly in the Constitution, as is their supremacy as prescribed in the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI). The only time some people mistakenly believe their supposed "rights" supersede others' Constitutional Rights are exemplified by the cases recently slapped down by SCOTUS:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CCRC and NIFLA v. Becerra. State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers: SCOTUS vacated the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling and remanded the case back to the Washington State Supreme Court.
I don’t want Justice’s opinions based on what some 18th century white man slave owner’s opinion as to what is right and just.
Guess you're willing to give up your First, Fourth, Fifth, etc., Amendment Rights, then, huh? After all... They were written by 18th century white male slave owners.
Trump has also suggested suspending due process in taking guns and deporting illegals. A Constitutionalist HE IS NOT!
Good thing he's not nominating himself for SCOTUS, then, huh? Constitutionalist Justices won't suspend due process, regardless of what Trump has ever said.
"Silly girl. It doesn't matter if you haven't forgotten. You can't stop it."
Unsigned, of course.
I doubt we can stop this appointment, but there will be other elections, other vacancies. The pendulum always swings back, so don't get too smug, Mr. or Ms. Tough Guy.
Well, they'd be mistaken. Constitutional Rights are enumerated very clearly in the Constitution, as is their supremacy as prescribed in the Constitution's Supremacy Clause (Article VI). The only time some people mistakenly believe their supposed "rights" supersede others' Constitutional Rights are exemplified by the cases recently slapped down by SCOTUS:
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. CCRC and NIFLA v. Becerra. State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers: SCOTUS vacated the Washington State Supreme Court's ruling and remanded the case back to the Washington State Supreme Court.
I noticed you never answered regarding Scalia’s ruling in Heller, was he legislating from the bench.
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!
When the Marxist Progressive took power at the turn of the last century, they crated Precedence Law, over textual constitutional Law. It steam rolled from there. Using past violations of the constitution to justify more violations.
Nowhere in the Constitution do we relinquish our due process/privacy rights by freely doing business with a private company. Nowhere. But that is how four justices ruled. Go ahead, explain it to me and then explain why so many seem to support that.
And how did a corporation become the same as a living human when it came to rights?
A Supreme Court that is lopsided in either direction is something to be feared, not celebrated.
As soon as there's a reliably solid majority in either political direction, SCOTUS decisions can become very strange and illogical.
That's more allowable in Congress, where any law they pass can be reversed in the wink of an eye, but bad SCOTUS decisions stick around long enough to cause real, lasting damage to our nation.
One single bad one brought on the Civil War, remember. It's supremely important that the Supremes have a hard time reaching every decision they decide. That only comes with a politically balanced court.
Neither party is smart enough by itself to never need help from the other one. Both are prone to the same wretched excess when they have a strong majority. Only the excesses differ.
And how did a corporation become the same as a living human when it came to rights?
A Supreme Court that is lopsided in either direction is something to be feared, not celebrated. Which is why I think the best solution for the Supreme Court is 3 liberal judges, 3 moderate judges, and 3 conservative judges. It would keep the court in Balance; and not political. And the cases should be based on if they are impacting the constitution, if not should be kicked back to the lower courts.
As soon as there's a reliably solid majority in either political direction, SCOTUS decisions can become very strange and illogical.
That's more allowable in Congress, where any law they pass can be reversed in the wink of an eye, but bad SCOTUS decisions stick around long enough to cause real, lasting damage to our nation.
One single bad one brought on the Civil War, remember. It's supremely important that the Supremes have a hard time reaching every decision they decide. That only comes with a politically balanced court.
Neither party is smart enough by itself to never need help from the other one. Both are prone to the same wretched excess when they have a strong majority. Only the excesses differ.
My answer in is RED, but I mostly agree with you.
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.
