The Federalist Society's List

Nordberg said:
Fact is liberal groups did not politicize the courts the way the rightys did. They could have but did not. Like Gerrymandering, the Repubs weaponized it. They play to win no matter how it hurts the people. The super wealthy want all the power they can get.
Click to expand...

Bork.
 
Robo said:
"The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be." https://fedsoc.org


Donald Trump has a list of more than a dozen candidates for appointment to the Supreme Court, (pretty much by my investigation), provided to him by the Federalist Society.
While I'm not an ardent fan of special interest collectives or political parties, I can only say about Trump's list, if he can pick another judge from that list the cut of Neil Gorsuch, then I'll likely be well pleased.


Supposedly, the list is compiled with originalist, literalist judges who's decisions are found by understanding the plain English language as written in our Constitution, its correct definitions and logical, simplistic and honest intent and thereby said judges rule accordingly, without political bias or any desire to illegally amend the Constitution from the bench or legislate law from the bench, thereby upholding their respect for the Constitution and their oath of allegiance to same and their duty to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, (AS WRITTEN.)
Click to expand...

Watch out folks. Every time you hear this horse shit someone is about to get their rights royally fucked over.

Think about? A Constitutional originalist and literalist?

That would mean slavery is ok and blacks are 3/5 a person with no rights a white man is obligated to respect and only the property owning class can vote and what are women thinking about a right to privacy when by god she shouldn’t even be voting and monopolies owned by monied interests that crush economic competition are just fine.

This is the happy horse shit these mouth breathers are advocating.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you have a citation for this?
Click to expand...

Yes. Because the Constitution provides that amendments be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, states cannot allow the voters to ratify amendments. Ohio had a law allowing a state vote which was held unconstitutional.

Hawk v. Smith (1920).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Watch out folks. Every time you hear this horse shit someone is about to get their rights royally fucked over.

Think about? A Constitutional originalist and literalist?

That would mean slavery is ok and blacks are 3/5 a person with no rights a white man is obligated to respect and only the property owning class can vote and what are women thinking about a right to privacy when by god she shouldn’t even be voting and monopolies owned by monied interests that crush economic competition are just fine.

This is the happy horse shit these mouth breathers are advocating.
Click to expand...

You forgot we amended the Constitution to end slavery.
 
Nordberg said:
took until 1865 for the law,. but slavery really did not end for many years after that..
Click to expand...

But the point was that "originalists" would interpret the Constitution to allow slavery.

"Think about? A Constitutional originalist and literalist? That would mean slavery is ok..."

Obviously originalists include the amendments in their interpretation.
 
Flash said:
It is not a super secret document, it is called the Alien and Sedition Acts signed by Adams.
Click to expand...

i'd like you to take note that adams was a huge advocate of free speech, right up until he was being forced to recognize it as a government representative.

see, this is the cognitive dissonance that the low information citizens need to recognize about themselves. WE THE PEOPLE must be the final arbiters of OUR constitution and STOP letting ourselves be lead to believe that the federal government owns and manages it, because they will ALWAYS seek to usurp power over us for control
 
Flash said:
Yes. Because the Constitution provides that amendments be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures, states cannot allow the voters to ratify amendments. Ohio had a law allowing a state vote which was held unconstitutional.

Hawk v. Smith (1920).
Click to expand...

once again, the case here was decided completely wrong. WE THE PEOPLE are the arbiters of both the US Constitution AND our states constitutions.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
once again, the case here was decided completely wrong. WE THE PEOPLE are the arbiters of both the US Constitution AND our states constitutions.
Click to expand...

No, it was decided correctly--according to the Constitution.

When did the people decide they could vote to ratify constitutional amendments? The Constitution clearly says that it is the job of state legislatures. If the people decide otherwise, they are clearly going against the plain words of the document. So, the Supreme Court decided correctly because the meaning is clear. If the people can change that meaning (without amending) the Constitution has no purpose-it becomes what the majority wants it to mean.
 
Flash said:
No, it was decided correctly--according to the Constitution.
Click to expand...
no it wasn't. the powers NOT SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED applies. nowhere in the US Constitution does it specifically say that the people do not have further power over the constitution, NOR does it say that they cannot vote about amendments.

Flash said:
When did the people decide they could vote to ratify constitutional amendments?
Click to expand...
when WE wrote it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no it wasn't. the powers NOT SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED applies. nowhere in the US Constitution does it specifically say that the people do not have further power over the constitution, NOR does it say that they cannot vote about amendments.
Click to expand...

The power of ratifying constitutional amendments is specifically delegated to the state legislatures. That means that power may not be exercised by any other body without amendments. The people have the power to lobby for Congress to propose an amendment or call a constitutional convention. That is how the peoples' power is exercised. It doesn't mean individuals can just decide to ignore the Constitution and rule of law.

And, the people cannot exercise the power to ratify constitutional amendments through jury nullification (your preferred method) because that is not a jury issue.
 
Flash said:
The power of ratifying constitutional amendments is specifically delegated to the state legislatures. That means that power may not be exercised by any other body without amendments.
Click to expand...
:sigh: why do you people refuse to understand that the state legislatures are bound by their constituents via state constitutions? is this the statist approach to eliminating state soveriegnty?

Flash said:
And, the people cannot exercise the power to ratify constitutional amendments through jury nullification (your preferred method) because that is not a jury issue.
Click to expand...
jury nullification is a power used by we the people to negate usurpation of power by the government.......meaning if that government passes a law we the people deem out of their purview, we can simply say 'not guilty' on all cases brought forth by the government.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
:sigh: why do you people refuse to understand that the state legislatures are bound by their constituents via state constitutions? is this the statist approach to eliminating state soveriegnty?

jury nullification is a power used by we the people to negate usurpation of power by the government.......meaning if that government passes a law we the people deem out of their purview, we can simply say 'not guilty' on all cases brought forth by the government.
Click to expand...

State legislatures are also bound by the U. S. Constitution. The U. S. Constitution trumps state constitutions. Since "the people" have made no attempt to allow a popular vote on ratifying amendments, then it remains the function of state legislatures and no state has a popular vote on amendments.

Jury nullification is irrelevant in the issue of state ratification of constitutional amendments since it is not a criminal matter that involves a "not guilty" plea. That would only apply to criminal laws.
 
Jack said:
Translation: The Federalist Society has already vetted these people and know they will overturn Roe v. Wade, rule against 'gay marriage', support 'Corporations are People', and basically install Christian Sharia Law across the countryside.
Click to expand...

Sounds good to most Americans.
 
I have read that kavanaugh wrote papers saying the president cannot be questioned or charged with crimes during his presidency. I am sure Trump is in favor of the imperial presidency. he does not want to face charges for what he is doing. The Federalists have a collection of pro birthers and pro presidential power judges. They are not doing America a favor, just Trump. and the far right. There are no reasonable fair minded jurists here. Just right wing quacks. They are of course pro corporation. They will assist the plutocracy that they are getting paid to defend.
 
Flash said:
State legislatures are also bound by the U. S. Constitution. The U. S. Constitution trumps state constitutions. Since "the people" have made no attempt to allow a popular vote on ratifying amendments, then it remains the function of state legislatures and no state has a popular vote on amendments.
Click to expand...
good fucking grief, another supremacist moron.........
 
SmarterthanYou said:
good fucking grief, another supremacist moron.........
Click to expand...

I am just following the Constitution which you ignore when convenient

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [Article VI, clause 2]

The supremacy clause makes the U. S. Constitution superior to state constitutions, not me. I don't understand why you argue about the Constitution since you obviously disagree with most of it. When somebody proves you are wrong based on case law, you simply say that case was "wrong."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top