Independent decision? You mean the ones the left side of the Court makes using partisan ideology?
Senior U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia found dead at West Texas r
- Thread starter christiefan915
- Start date
Independent decision? You mean the ones the left side of the Court makes using partisan ideology?
Do you believe his choice will be anything but a partisan ploy?
It doesn't even out. The current Liberal President will choose a Liberal to replace a Conservative.
Just over half did unless you define "the people" as only those who voted for him.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
And the next President might be a conservative, and have to replace a liberal justice.
There is nothing at all written that conservative justices have to be replaced with conservative justices, or that liberals should be replaced with liberals. The GOP's arguments about replacing Scalia are preposterous.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well fine but that is definitely not what the founding fathers intended the U.S. Constitution to be. They intended it to be a dynamic living functioning blue print for governing and not a static written in stone document.
To counter Grinds argument everytime I hear conservatives screaming "JUDICIAL ACTIVISM" it's always been when the court make a decision either expanding or protecting the rights, freedoms and liberties of others. Since protecting individuals rights and liberties is a stated objective of the U.S. constitution vis-a-vis the bill of rights and was intended by the founding fathers the lame claims by conservatives when the courts expand or protect freedoms and liberties, as was intended by our founding fathers, well then their cries tend to fall on deaf ears as far as I'm concerned cause I know that conservatives couldn't give a rats ass about MY freedom or liberties.
Apparently someone gave you an over-inflated opinion of yourself. You talk about how you believe in free speech yet you tell others to put me on ignore. I won't put anyone on ignore. You pretend to be so high and mighty but you're so low a damn snake couldn't crawl under your belly.
Why don't you cunt up and put ME on ignore proving my claims about you. You keep talking about it. Do it or STFU.
christiefan915
Catalyst
Darth Omar
Russian asset
So "the people" only include those that voted for Obama?
Does "those people" include all the blacks that have no clue what he stood for but voted based on skin color?
Yet you're having an orgasm because Scalia is dead. That's hateful and disgusting at the same time.
somewhat agree. Change should come by legislation = "will of the people".
On the other hand there is the ability to use stare decisis where needed to remedy inequalities.
One thing about the gay marriage ruling is the states were all over the place on recognizing gay marriage -and it led to absurd situations
where a couple married and recognized in one state could move to another and lose all rights of marriage -clearly a case of inequality.
Using the 14th as a remedy was a fine/sound decision by SCOTUS.
On the other hand this "living document" crap - where the TEXT DOES NOT CHANGE over time is specious reasoning.
And for that idea of originalism promoted by Scalia, it has returned some kind of anchorage to the Constitution as the ultimate law of the land -
and not just a whim by the judiciary, who should not be "legislating from the bench"
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
They'd do the same thing - and it would be just as wrong.
Never said you did. I told you to put me on ignore in the same crude manner you did to someone else.
If it's between the two of you I suggest you do it through PM. Since this is an open forum, that means I can respond to anyone I wish if it's posted on the public part of the forum. That you want me to butt out means you don't believe in free speech like you claim. You believe free speech should be exercised only when it suits you. I'll butt out when you can enforce your demand.
The problem with the statement of will of the people, especially when made by people like christiefan915, is that when they are in the majority, that is how it is considered. However, when they aren't on the majority side, they call it mob rule.
Since the Constitution says marriage belongs as a State decision, not in so many words but based on the 10th Amendment, it should be left to the States. The founding fathers provided a means which which to change the Constitution through the amendment process. Same sex marriage supporters knew that would never happen. That's why they go through the courts. Funny thing is they use a concept that the FF didn't use but was granted to the Supreme Court by the Supreme Court itself in 1803.
Somewhere that was beneath my level of intelligence can't reject me.