Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
Sigforum K9 handler |
I interpreted it more as them baiting Trump not to pick her so he doesn’t forfill their silly prediction. I actually think that the left is very afraid of her for her Constitutional beliefs, and for the fact that most likely she’ll get confirmed. | |||
|
| Member |
Yes, Trump needs to cram their misogyny down their smug hypocritical throats... “People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik Be harder to kill: https://preparefit.ck.page | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money  |
 He may very well do that with this pick. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
Precisely. | |||
|
| Muzzle flash aficionado  |
In simpler terms, activist judges see shadows (penumbra) of rights cast by enumerated ones but not actually mentioned themselves and treat them as if they were. They see unwritten extensions to rights that they think should exist (but don't). An example is the right to "privacy" extended to Roe V. Wade. flashguy Texan by choice, not accident of birth | |||
|
| Lawyers, Guns and Money |
The terms come from Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) in which Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority that the right [privacy, abortion] was to be found in the "penumbras" and "emanations" of other constitutional protections, such as the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment. Clarence Thomas and conservative originalists use it as a pejorative to illustrate that an expansive or 'living constitution' interpretation means that the Constitution says whatever a majority of the justices want it to say, and therefore it has no concrete meaning. "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." -- Justice Janice Rogers Brown "The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth." -rduckwor | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
Thanks. | |||
|
| Nature is full of magnificent creatures |
Things wouldn't seem so mysterious if they just said something along the lines of "don't pull a rabbit out of a hat." Lawyers aren't the only ones who use convoluted language in their work. Scientists and engineers often do the same thing, for the same purpose. The best and brightest of all, in my opinion, are the ones who understand complex topics well enough to explain them plainly, so a little child can understand. Leon Lederman taught this way. | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process  |
Under Arizona law, a Senate vacancy is filled by the Governor appointing a replacement of the same party, which can happen in 24 hours or less. Just saying. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
The language is plain enough to those who have mastered the language. The sign in Thomas’s chambers is mocking, not instructive. Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
Armed and Gregarious |
The problem with too many who view the decisions of the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, is they actually want certain outcomes, not a strict interpretation of the law, or even a "living document" interpretation. This is equally true of both "sides." For an example of people wanting a particular outcome, rather than true interpretation of the law, look at the Supreme Court decision Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Many conservatives complain about the outcome, and deride Scalia for siding with the majority. They were upset with the outcome, and disregarded the analysis of the law. Here again, while discussing possible nominees, we have people who claim to want either a strict interpretation, or a "living constitution" perspective, based on what they perceive will favor the outcomes they want. Both "sides" are often disappointed/angered by Judges who do not deliver their desired outcomes, regardless of which judicial philosophy they claim to support. The truth is most, even those who claim to support a "strict interpretation," want particular outcomes, more than they want a particular judicial philosophy. As a result whomever is nominated, and later confirmed, many will eventually complain about some of their decisions, based purely on the outcome, not the process used to arrive at the outcome. ___________________________________________ "He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman | |||
|
| Gracie Allen is my personal savior! |
Scalia's not the only one who's gotten this treatment from conservatives. | |||
|
goodheart |
deepocean, did you take physics from Leon Lederman?
At least he was a congenial sort when I met him (courtesy of my son "dilettante"), as opposed to Sheldon Glashow. _________________________ “ What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.”— Lord Melbourne | |||
|
| Little ray of sunshine  |
Amen, brother. Many want their desired outcome, and they don't give a damn about how the Court gets there. For example, I think Roberts didn't want Obamacare as a political matter any more than any of us here wanted it. But he thought it was constitutional (perhaps barely), and also valued the principle that the Court should not overturn a political outcome unless the constitutional argument was very damn close to a sure thing. In other words, Roberts placed a high value on protecting the separation of powers and didn't want to get anywhere close to usurping Congress' law-making prerogative. But to many he is a socialist traitor, because they don't like the outcome. Scalia was pretty consistent about following his philosophy of judging, despite where it led him. It is harder as a originalist, because your philosophy is much more restrictive. If you are a living constitutionalist, you face many fewer limits. The fish is mute, expressionless. The fish doesn't think because the fish knows everything. | |||
|
| Armed and Gregarious |
Oh I agree with you about that case, and didn't give the Roberts/ACA example only because it's much more complicated than Johnson (and United States v. Eichman (496 U.S. 310)) The flag burning cases were much less complicated, and yet people were still driven by their emotional desire for a particular outcome. Scalia has even stated he didn't want that outcome, but felt that outcome was required by the law. http://www.businessinsider.com...urning-trump-2016-11 Scalia sided with the majority in that case, which found the First Amendment protects political expression like setting the stars and stripes on fire. That doesn't mean the 78-year-old justice likes flag desecration, but it's the justices' job to interpret the Constitution, not to pass moral judgment, Scalia has said repeatedly. "I hate the result [in Texas v. Johnson]," Scalia, who died earlier this year, said at a 2014 question-and-answer session sponsored by Brooklyn Law School. "I would send that guy to jail so fast if I were king," he added, then referring to Gregory Lee Johnson as a "bearded weirdo." ___________________________________________ "He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman | |||
|
| Armed and Gregarious |
http://www.foxnews.com/politic...eme-court-fight.html But over the weekend, a top Democratic senator suggested that stopping the nominee is more important than the upcoming midterm elections. Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., acknowledged that so-called red-state Democrats may be tempted to vote for Trump's selection out of political necessity, but urged his colleagues Sunday to consider more than their political careers. "Beyond the procedure, beyond the gamesmanship, it is a life-and-death important decision to be made by this court on so many issues," the Senate minority whip said on NBC's "Meet the Press." Easy for someone whose career is not at risk to say, but much harder for those with actual "skin in the game" to execute. Also, it ignores the fact that Senators are supposed to represent their constituents first, not their political party. ___________________________________________ "He was never hindered by any dogma, except the Constitution." - Ty Ross speaking of his grandfather General Barry Goldwater "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - William Tecumseh Sherman | |||
|
| I believe in the principle of Due Process |
“A controversial decision will cost you some votes. A courageous decision will cost you the election.” Sir Arnold Robinson GCMG CVO MA Luckily, I have enough willpower to control the driving ambition that rages within me. When you had the votes, we did things your way. Now, we have the votes and you will be doing things our way. This lesson in political reality from Lyndon B. Johnson "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible." - Justice Janice Rogers Brown | |||
|
| Member |
I don't like that damn-dirty hippies burn the flag, but I'm super-cool with it being deemed as Constitutional. What's the big deal? Same-same for any activity I find personally or politically detestable, I'm tots groovy with SC Justices ruling based on a strict interpretation of our founding documents. Which is what makes the left's objections so laughably ironic. They are saying his pick (who they don't know yet) will destroy the Constitution in the assumption that they won't uphold the non-existent "right" for women to choose to kill their unborn children as a means of convenient birth control after an "oopsie." In fact, his pick would interpret said Constitution much more strictly and uphold it better than the far left hacks would. “People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik Be harder to kill: https://preparefit.ck.page | |||
|
| Go ahead punk, make my day |
T-minus 45 mins and counting until the latest Leftist FREAKOUT. | |||
|
Member |
Yep. I'm standing by like everyone else. History in the making  | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 ... 16 17 18 19 20 21 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024