The boy just don't get it...

N

NOVA

U. S. NAVY Veteran
BO on selecting new SC Justice....

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.
-------------------------------
Well, if you didn't know the Messiah was a loony meathead before, this statement should clear it up....
Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of the identity, power, or weakness: blind justice and blind impartiality.

Obviously the idea of impartial justice is a bit over the Messiah s head...
Guess he'll want his homeboy drug dealers to be sentenced to babysitting the kids while Mama works the streets....
 
Seriously? Are you going to sit there and suggest judges are ever truly impartial? Everyone enters every job with preconceptions and biases. Every judge ever nominated to SCOTUS is no different.

You guys seriously need some new material. Since the election real Americans have been worried about the economy, foreign policy, and a whole host of real issues. You guys have been complaining that the First Lady was showing too much arm, Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, he shook someone's hand who you didn't like, he's raising taxes on people you'll never know or speak to and giving you a sizable tax cut in the process, etc.

Get with it.
 
ib1yysguy said:
Seriously? Are you going to sit there and suggest judges are ever truly impartial? Everyone enters every job with preconceptions and biases. Every judge ever nominated to SCOTUS is no different.

You guys seriously need some new material. Since the election real Americans have been worried about the economy, foreign policy, and a whole host of real issues. You guys have been complaining that the First Lady was showing too much arm, Obama bowed to the king of Saudi Arabia, he shook someone's hand who you didn't like, he's raising taxes on people you'll never know or speak to and giving you a sizable tax cut in the process, etc.

Get with it.
Click to expand...

Seriously, don't you know what the job of a SC Justice is...
How about a normal every day judge hearing cases in your hometown?
How about the job of Congress...(you remember them? They pass the freekin' laws)

Its the job of Congress when considering a new law to consider " how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."
Even a bonehead liberal ought to know that....

Its the job of the local judge to see to it that a trial is conducted in fair, legal, and impartial manner...its certainly not his job to second guess the law past by the Congress....

And its the job of the SC to debate and rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress....nothing more, nothing less....

Your Messiah is a meathead....
 
he needs to nominate me, the senate needs to unanimously vote yes, and congress needs to stfu and gbtw. no unconstitutional law will pass my judicial scrutiny, ever. It will be a free america once again.
 
bravo said:
Seriously, don't you know what the job of a SC Justice is.......
Click to expand...
They not only don't have a clue and they don't care to know. For liberals, the court is the easiest way to circumvent the Constitution.

Any reasonable interpretation of the Constitution would suggest that a judge who is not a strict originalist shouldn't be considered, but the Left hates the Constitution, and therefore hates originalists.

At least its only Souter who's being replaced, and won't affect the balance.
 
Would you like the Constitution to return to her unadulterated form?

I just want to clarify if that is what you mean by originalist.

Yeah, lefts just hate the Constitution, it just guarantees us everything we believe in, but we hate that, just hate, hate it, hate it.

You believe women should not have the right to vote? Only property holding males and not black males should be the only ones to vote? Is that what you mean by the original Constitution?

It is not allowed to grow and change with the times? Our Constitution must be stagnate? Evolution in ideas can not foster change? I need clarification, please.
 
froggie said:
Would you like the Constitution to return to her unadulterated form?...
Click to expand...
If you're alluding to scrapping hard fought amendments, not quite. Originalist means that judges should rule based on what the Founders would have wanted; the original interpretation, not on the precedent principle of other Supreme Court decisions, or worse, their latest trick, European law!
 
froggie said:
Would you like the Constitution to return to her unadulterated form?

I just want to clarify if that is what you mean by originalist.

Yeah, lefts just hate the Constitution, it just guarantees us everything we believe in, but we hate that, just hate, hate it, hate it.

You believe women should not have the right to vote? Only property holding males and not black males should be the only ones to vote? Is that what you mean by the original Constitution?

It is not allowed to grow and change with the times? Our Constitution must be stagnate? Evolution in ideas can not foster change? I need clarification, please.
Click to expand...


Why try to to change the topic..? No one claims the Constitution can't or shouldn't be amended if the need arises.....

The problem is ignoring and/or mis-characterizing what is already laid down in the Constitution and its Amendments....
Finding new rights where none existed before or ignoring rights that we've enjoyed for over 200 years.....

That clear enough ???
 
bravo said:
Why try to to change the topic..? No one claims the Constitution can't or shouldn't be amended if the need arises.....

The problem is ignoring and/or mis-characterizing what is already laid down in the Constitution and its Amendments....
Finding new rights where none existed before or ignoring rights that we've enjoyed for over 200 years.....

That clear enough ???
Click to expand...

Or misunderstanding the basic principle of the Constitution- that the People give government its only power; the government does not "give rights" to the people, it can only take them away.

For example, the Bill of Rights is largely superfluous. These ten amendments were basically the "feel good" provisions of the late 18th century. The Constitution itself guarantees those rights, since it does not take them away. They are unalienable.
 
bravo said:
Seriously, don't you know what the job of a SC Justice is...
How about a normal every day judge hearing cases in your hometown?
How about the job of Congress...(you remember them? They pass the freekin' laws)

Its the job of Congress when considering a new law to consider " how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation."
Even a bonehead liberal ought to know that....

Its the job of the local judge to see to it that a trial is conducted in fair, legal, and impartial manner...its certainly not his job to second guess the law past by the Congress....

And its the job of the SC to debate and rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress....nothing more, nothing less....

Your Messiah is a meathead....
Click to expand...

The only meathead around here are bigots like you. Hitlers dead, you were born to late for your massiah.
 
It's obvious from what he said, Obama wants judicial activists to be on the SC, not someone to interpret the Constitution. This is radicalism.

bravo said:
BO on selecting new SC Justice....

Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as President. So I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives -- whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes.
-------------------------------
Well, if you didn't know the Messiah was a loony meathead before, this statement should clear it up....
Lady Justice is often depicted wearing a blindfold. This is done in order to indicate that justice is (or should be) meted out objectively, without fear or favor, regardless of the identity, power, or weakness: blind justice and blind impartiality.

Obviously the idea of impartial justice is a bit over the Messiah s head...
Guess he'll want his homeboy drug dealers to be sentenced to babysitting the kids while Mama works the streets....
Click to expand...
 
Southern Man said:
If you're alluding to scrapping hard fought amendments, not quite. Originalist means that judges should rule based on what the Founders would have wanted; the original interpretation, not on the precedent principle of other Supreme Court decisions, or worse, their latest trick, European law!
Click to expand...

The founders could not have imagined television or radio or Rush.
They did have forms of abortion in the founders time but they did not mention it in the constitution. So I guess they did not intend to ban it?
 
uscitizen said:
The founders could not have imagined television or radio or Rush.
They did have forms of abortion in the founders time but they did not mention it in the constitution. So I guess they did not intend to ban it?
Click to expand...

They did not face many of the complicated issues that we face today.
Stem cells, internet, space travel, nuclear weapons!
 
uscitizen said:
The founders could not have imagined television or radio or Rush.
They did have forms of abortion in the founders time but they did not mention it in the constitution. So I guess they did not intend to ban it?
Click to expand...

They had newspapers, broadsides and town criers. They also had respect for innocent life, but left it up to the States to define criminal activity including murder. *shrug*
 
froggie said:
They did not face many of the complicated issues that we face today.
Stem cells, internet, space travel, nuclear weapons!
Click to expand...
None of those are complex as all that, and none can't be decided on based on Original Intent. for example, stem cells- research on medical issues is Amendment IV or X, leave it up to the People or the States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top