Where I stand... because this has apparently been confusing to people...

Damocles said:
Where did I say that I was an "elitist scholar"? And no, I don't trust Kavanaugh. Though I think Gorsuch has a good chance at it. I also never said that every judge they nominate will be like Scalia, I said they are the only chance out there that anybody like Scalia will be nominated.
Click to expand...

The country doesn't need another Scalia. One was enough for several lifetimes.
 
Damocles said:
And yet the reason that I said I am a republican does. They still are the only party that will nominate judges like Scalia to the District Courts of Appeal or the SCOTUS. HillBillary would have sought out the most "Constitution isn't really meant to limit Federal Government" judge she could find, no judge would ever reach the courts that would actually judge a law on its legal merit.
Click to expand...

Strict constructionists are clinging to a right-wing meme that makes no sense. All knowledge and law did not end in 1776. The framers were aware that they could not create laws that would serve America forever. They predicted that and provided mechanisms to change and adapt. There is nothing holy about what they did. it is just a blueprint not a bible. Originalism is atavistic and ilogical. Scalia dragged America to a place we long ago moved away from.

I suppose we should remove womens right to vote . That was original.It was part of a flawed and dated constitution.
 
Nordberg said:
Strict constructionists are clinging to a right-wing meme that makes no sense. All knowledge and law did not end in 1776. The framers were aware that they could not create laws that would serve America forever. They predicted that and provided mechanisms to change and adapt. There is nothing holy about what they did. it is just a blueprint not a bible. Originalism is atavistic and ilogical. Scalia dragged America to a place we long ago moved away from.

I suppose we should remove womens right to vote . That was original.It was part of a flawed and dated constitution.
Click to expand...

The framers, understanding that there would be a need for changes, created a system that allowed us to Amend the Constitution. Those are also parts of the Constitution. If you seek to change it, do it the right way not through the "magic" of just ignoring parts you don't like because you just don't like it and "boy geebus it is just old".
 
Damocles said:
The framers, understanding that there would be a need for changes, created a system that allowed us to Amend the Constitution. Those are also parts of the Constitution. If you seek to change it, do it the right way not through the "magic" of just ignoring parts you don't like because you just don't like it and "boy geebus it is just old".
Click to expand...

Is that what you think you read? WOW. Supremes interpret the constitution. It requires fitting it to our reality. Not important is fitting it into 1776. Those days and times are long gone. Do you think the Supremes change the constitution every decision ? Think they're ignoring it? WTF
 
Nordberg said:
Is that what you think you read? WOW. Supremes interpret the constitution. It requires fitting it to our reality. Not important is fitting it into 1776. Those days and times are long gone. Do you think the Supremes change the constitution every decision ? Think they're ignoring it? WTF
Click to expand...

I prefer people who read and follow it rather than ignore and "interpret" it. This is largely where we differ in opinion and why I am not a Democrat. And yes, I think sometimes they "interpret" what they want rather than follow what it says.
 
Nordberg said:
Is that what you think you read? WOW. Supremes interpret the constitution. It requires fitting it to our reality. Not important is fitting it into 1776. Those days and times are long gone. Do you think the Supremes change the constitution every decision ? Think they're ignoring it? WTF
Click to expand...

The Founders never gave the power of interpreting The Constitution to the Supreme Court. I suspect they never thought it needed interpreting

That was a power the Court gave itself. Just sayin.
 
Nordberg said:
Is that what you think you read? WOW. Supremes interpret the constitution. It requires fitting it to our reality. Not important is fitting it into 1776. Those days and times are long gone. Do you think the Supremes change the constitution every decision ? Think they're ignoring it? WTF
Click to expand...

Conservative justices interpret the Constitution. Leftists invent law to suit their agendas.
 
Nordberg said:
Strict constructionists are clinging to a right-wing meme that makes no sense. All knowledge and law did not end in 1776. The framers were aware that they could not create laws that would serve America forever. They predicted that and provided mechanisms to change and adapt. There is nothing holy about what they did. it is just a blueprint not a bible. Originalism is atavistic and ilogical. Scalia dragged America to a place we long ago moved away from.

I suppose we should remove womens right to vote . That was original.It was part of a flawed and dated constitution the Constitution.
Click to expand...

:indeed:
 
Teflon Don said:
The Founders never gave the power of interpreting The Constitution to the Supreme Court. I suspect they never thought it needed interpreting

That was a power the Court gave itself. Just sayin.
Click to expand...

True but if the Court can't rule on issues involving the Constitution then there's no reason to have a SC because they can't act as a check or balance against the other two branches.
 
Guille said:
True but if the Court can't rule on issues involving the Constitution then there's no reason to have a SC because they can't act as a check or balance against the other two branches.
Click to expand...

Quite true...and quite correct, Guille.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top