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.
The executive branch is suppose to be able to interpret laws too and how to apply them too. The Court is suppose to show some deference to the other branches of the government. Then they ignore originalism when applying the 14th or whatever part of the constitution the court twist to justify their ruling. The Court naturally wants all the power and you end up with it legislating crappy policy.
Originalism is nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse for pushing a conservative political agenda.
Quote:
The larger irony is that while there are careful, reasonable and nonpolitical arguments for certain forms of originalism, the views of many self-proclaimed originalists line up, not with those of We the People in 1789, but with those of the right-wing of the Republican Party in 2017. Whether we’re speaking of campaign-finance laws, commercial advertising, gun rights, affirmative action, gay rights, property rights or abortion, originalism has failed to prevent judges from voting in accordance with their political predilections.
Any president deserves a degree of deference with respect to Supreme Court nominees, and Trump’s model, Justice Scalia, was a genuinely great judge. But part of his greatness consisted in his willingness, on important occasions, to abandon originalism -- and to vote in ways that defied easy ideological categorization.
Too often, today’s originalists read the Constitution to fit with the latest Republican Party platform, while solemnly proclaiming their reverence for the founding period and their own political neutrality. That’s shameful -- and it’s a sham. https://www.bloombergquint.com/opini...urt#gs.RBS_GtI
Incorrect. Mandatorily taking money from those who do not want union representation is outright theft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
I'd agree and this will be the next thing coming up in the future however it won't be the union bringing the case. Once they lose the ability to dictate the pay of non union workers it will be the final nail in their coffin.
Try and get union support for non union workers negotiating their own pay and benefits, not going to happen...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones
The unions just extort money from Civil Service employees.
I found three different people on the first three pages of this thread who are anti-union. Their writings are also noticeably conservative. Unionization is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is a labor issue.
I found three different people on the first three pages of this thread who are anti-union. Their writings are also noticeably conservative. Unionization is not a conservative/liberal issue. It is a labor issue.
I'm anti PUBLIC union because for one it's not needed, that's what Civil Service Commissions are for and the tax payer has no place at the negotiating table while they negotiate how to spend tax dollars on public employees and secondly union brass makes out better than the employees they extort money from. My union brass has better HC, dental, vision, make more money than any employee does and they get more PTO while they refuse to sit down with management to negotiate a contract so we ended up working without one for 4 years which meant we got no step raises or COL. Who are they looking out for? Themselves.
Originalism is nothing more than a thinly veiled excuse for pushing a conservative political agenda.
So? If it's interpretation based on a neo-conservative or modern conservative agenda then it is not originalism. The constitution or a law should be interpreted as it was understood when written.
I make this observation based two recent cases, Citizens United and Janus v. AFSCME.
Citizens United has taken a legal tool which protects individuals from liability and created a person. This was decided in this way not because of original intent but the evolution of the corporation away from it's original intent for political purposes.
Janus v. AFSCME deprives unions of their rights to speak as organizations of people and not as legal tools. The Supreme Court has chosen to deprive unions of the funds needed to speak as loudly as the corporations by twisting the right of Mark Janus not to speak into a device of their own creation.
In the next year when Amy Barrett gets the appointment to the SC, we will have the confidence to tackle the 1934 Firearms act as unconstitutional, using the text of the 2nd amendment, the times it was composed and the dictionary of the 1780's
You have no concept of history. It has been going on since the founding of the United States. Do you think every Supreme Court before the 2000 election wasn't politically-motivated, and in many cases wrong?
The fact that anyone has ever believed that the Supreme Court rules on the actual Constitution is proof of how stupid and gullible Americans are.
5-4 decisions were the norm in the 1930's as well, and many other times before that....
The fact that Americans simply accept the Supreme Court decisions like they are written by god himself, shows their ignorance. And the fact that even when they reject the courts, their only response is to win elections so they can themselves stack the court, is proof of just how powerful, and ultimately illegitimate the court is.
And yet, the political-left said NOTHING when decisions such as same-sex marriage and the affordable-care act went 5-4 in their favor. Not only did they not criticize those decisions, they celebrated them. So when I hear these HYPOCRITES whining because what-goes-around-comes-around, I have zero sympathies.
You're all partisan hacks who only want to get your way. And when you don't get your way, you whine. You aren't opposed the the politicization of the courts as a matter of principle. You are only opposed to not getting what you want.
A nation of selfish hypocrites. This is exactly what you people deserve. I hope it all blows up in your faces.
You are right that I was not talking about the whole history of the Supreme Court. I didn't mean to imply that before 2000, the courts were not politically motivated. Of course, they were. I guess Bush v. Gore sticks out in my mind because it was so nakedly political.
I, too, am not fond of ANY 4-5 decisions, because they always smack of political motivations. So I can't disagree with you on that. However, you can't say that conservatives, when the court goes 5/4 on THEIR side don't rejoice. It is human nature to be glad when you think you have a win. Why does that make people hypocritical?
So you criticize people for just accepting the judgement of the supreme court. Accepting those judgements doesn't mean one is ignorant. It means you also accept our Constitutional system. So if you don't like it, what do you propose? Are you wanting a Constitutional change?
So if we are a nation of selfish hypocrites, is that why Trump was elected?
I, too, am not fond of ANY 4-5 decisions, because they always smack of political motivations. So I can't disagree with you on that. However, you can't say that conservatives, when the court goes 5/4 on THEIR side don't rejoice. It is human nature to be glad when you think you have a win. Why does that make people hypocritical?
Hypocritical - Behaving in a way that suggests one has higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case... Characterized by behavior that contradicts what one claims to believe or feel... Pretense of having virtues, beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually possess.
The hypocrisy isn't in the rejoicing when a Supreme Court is made. The hypocrisy is the belief that the Supreme Court is legitimate(IE independent according to the OP) when it agrees with you, and illegitimate when it doesn't agree with you.
Either the Supreme Court is legitimate, or it isn't. Either 5-4 decisions are binding, or they aren't.
Ever since I came to this forum I have criticized the Supreme Court's decisions, regardless of which side it benefited. Because I knew that the shoe would eventually be on the other foot. What comes around, goes around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G Grasshopper
So you criticize people for just accepting the judgement of the supreme court. Accepting those judgements doesn't mean one is ignorant. It means you also accept our Constitutional system. So if you don't like it, what do you propose? Are you wanting a Constitutional change?
The so-called power of Judicial Review is not actually in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison, 1803.
So if we are a nation of selfish hypocrites, is that why Trump was elected?
Yes. As I said, a nation of hypocrites. I didn't say a nation of liberal hypocrites or conservative hypocrites. Everyone is a hypocrite. And you know that to be the case, at least when it comes to everyone but you.
Your mother is a hypocrite, your father is a hypocrite, your siblings are hypocrites, your friends are hypocrites, I'm a hypocrite, and you are a hypocrite. Albeit some are far more hypocritical than others, and some are far more selfish than others.
And the epitome of selfish-hypocrisy in this country, are the politicians themselves. Who we elect to make decisions for us.
Trump is a selfish-hypocrite. Hillary Clinton is a selfish hypocrite. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, name a politician, and I'll give you a selfish-hypocrite.
TLDR : If you praise, defend, and support the enforcement of 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that you agree with, you have no right to complain about 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that you don't agree with.
Quote:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." - Thomas Jefferson
The so-called power of Judicial Review is not actually in the Constitution. The Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison, 1803
What about this. It says nothing about passing laws;
Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
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.
