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.
They are not impartial. Do like those futuristic movies and bind their eyes, and put them in a purple neon pool to make judgments strictly by the constitution and not who whose party it is.
Courts should be representative of our country, besides, did all the prior justices ignore the constitution.
No, they should not! They don't make laws they are supposed to make decisions on what the Constitution says on any issue. Yes, throughout our history there have been SC judges who did not do that but based their decisions on their own personal opinions instead and that has been true whether they were a conservative or liberal judge. That needs to stop!
No, they should not! They don't make laws they are supposed to make decisions on what the Constitution says on any issue. Yes, throughout our history there have been SC judges who did not do that but based their decisions on their own personal opinions instead and that has been true whether they were a conservative or liberal judge. That needs to stop!
If interpreting the Constitution is important for SCOTUS Justices in order to make decisions, isn’t it important to look to understand the original meanings & underlying principles & then decide how best to apply in our current circumstances?
Understanding the concepts & principles underlying the words while insisting they must be applied in precisely the same way that they would have been applied when they were adopted is the definition of sophistry.
How would the original drafters expect the underlying concepts & principles to reasonably & plausibly be applied by using plain language in its ordinary sense, & by considering our present day circumstances?
If you detest corruption of power then you should have a rather large issue with McConnell not the democratic party.
Justices have been interpreting the constitution of hundreds of years but suddenly only your side got it right because they were able to pack the court with activist judges.
I don't know what you mean by my "side" which seems to have a pejorative meaning.
As for me, I have for many years been obedient to following the fundamental rules of constitutional construction. And, what makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.
So, once again I ask, in objecting to striking down Roe vs Wade, is that you admitting you detest abiding by our Constitution and federalism, our constitution's big-tent system?
Is it not a fact that striking down Roe v Wade would simply restore to the people in each state the freedom and liberty to determine the rule of law as applied to abortion? Is this not true "diversity"?
What has happened to democrats' much touted love affair with “diversity” and freedom of choice, and leaving to the people within each state the liberty and freedom to formulate and adopt a democratic consensus over their own destiny, and control over those “. . . objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State"? ___ Federalist No. 45
But, it cannot protect rights that are not guaranteed in the Constitution. That is why the argument only applies to abortion, and not birth control or marriage equality.
I recommend reading Justice Alito’s drafted opinion. The Constitution does not say anything about “interracial marriage, contraception, the right not to be nonconsensually sterilized, the right to reside with relatives, the right to make decisions about your children’s education” & the “right to engage in consensual” & private “same-sex intimacy,” & the right to “same sex marriage”.
Unlike Justice Alito’s drafted opinion which did.
& quoting a 17th century misogynist nine times in a 100 page or so opinion? What the heck was that all about?
Justice Scalia stated, “I am an originalist and a textualist, not a nut.”
Perhaps it is the zealots who do not like the rule of law and sanity?
You will find out how "popular" you and your fellow radicals actually are in November. In the absence of voter fraud, the balance of the nation is sick of liberalism.
On your second point, from your lips to God's ears (see what I did there?). I find it astonishing that anyone believes the current administration is 'doing a good job' or 'doing the best they can,' and am disgusted that former President Trump's name continually comes up, as if any of this is HIS fault.
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.
