Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 72
Thanks Tree49Thanks

Thread: Majority of Americans Favor SC Ruling on What Constitution Says Today

  1. #21
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,785
    Thanks
    8497

    From
    New York
    “I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me.”

    -Justice Hugo Black
    Thanks from boontito, orangecat and Neomalthusian

  2. #22
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,700
    Thanks
    557

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by roberthughey View Post
    What a phony poll question.

    What it means to whom today?

    Liberals.

    LOL!!
    Silly libs think the SCOTUS doesn't interpret the Constitution as it relates to current issues. That's exactly what it exists for.

  3. #23
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    2,700
    Thanks
    557

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    How are there any people thinking it should be "what its intentions are"? That's not how laws work. You can't go back and say "but we meant this". If we did that, people would only be allowed to own muskets.
    The Constitutiuon says nothing about muskets. It says "arms".

  4. #24
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,557
    Thanks
    37113

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by roberthughey View Post
    What a phony poll question.

    What it means to whom today?

    Liberals.

    LOL!!
    Actually, the question is distinctly non-political. It's a question of legal philosophy. Most people who call themselves "Cosntitutionalists" really just want the Constitution to be interpreted as they would prefer, based on its meaning today. "Originalism" isn't liberal or conservative, but it appears conservative because conservatives want things not to change (that's the essence of "conservative" as a philosophy) so imagining things haven't changed since 1789 is convenient, at least on the surface.

  5. #25
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    22,023
    Thanks
    12273

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Then you should like Bret Kavenaugh, he stated he will interpret the Constitution as written. Its more about who you want to interpret the Constitution isn't it? Where does it say in the Constitution that man can marry a man or woman marry a woman? It doesn't , but 9 judges made ruling that now says that. Where does it say a woman can end the life of a fetus in the womb? It doesn't , but 9 justices ruled and now its law. Where does it say a person can't own a gun in the Constitution? It does say you can, but Liberals want 9 justices to say a person can't own a gun. Liberals want a group of puppets they can manipulate to make laws via judicial activism.
    you still don't get it, "interpreting it how it is written" that's what judges do. The meaning of a collection of words is up for interpretation. Every single contract dispute is based on others interpreting the words different from what the other person thinks they mean or intended it to mean. That's why there is a judicial branch
    Thanks from jacobfitcher

  6. #26
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,557
    Thanks
    37113

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Jets View Post
    “I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me.”

    -Justice Hugo Black
    This tends to explain why Black was on the wrong side in so many SCOTUS decisions.

    He voted in favor of Japanese internment (wrote the majority opinion, in fact)

    He dissented in Tinker vs Des Moines, which gave students the right to silent protest as long as they weren't disruptive to the school (Black thought black arm bands were inherently disruptive)

    He opposed a right to privacy in Griswald.

    He opposed substantive due process that allows courts to enforce rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

    Thank goodness he was in the minority regarding most of these issues. He saw the power of government as much more substantial and allowed much more coercion of individual liberty than his colleagues in the majority

  7. #27
    Moderator jacobfitcher's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,845
    Thanks
    6650

    From
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The problem with this idea is the law could be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to be rather then what the Constitution says. Instead of laws we have 9 people in robes making laws based on current social experiments invented by a Liberal Utopia. The SC would be puppets for the Liberal agenda. Fortunately what Trump is doing now will prevent that from happening for generations
    These aren't "social experiments". It's called "growth".

    Hell, if you want to use the "originalist" mindset, there would still be slavery, and only white men could own property.

  8. #28
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,339
    Thanks
    4095

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    This tends to explain why Black was on the wrong side in so many SCOTUS decisions.

    He voted in favor of Japanese internment (wrote the majority opinion, in fact)

    He dissented in Tinker vs Des Moines, which gave students the right to silent protest as long as they weren't disruptive to the school (Black thought black arm bands were inherently disruptive)

    He opposed a right to privacy in Griswald.

    He opposed substantive due process that allows courts to enforce rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

    Thank goodness he was in the minority regarding most of these issues. He saw the power of government as much more substantial and allowed much more coercion of individual liberty than his colleagues in the majority
    This seems like a bit of a distraction from that actual quote. Why does deference to the Amendment process "explain why he was on the wrong side of so many SCOTUS decisions?"

    Amendments can be made to the Constitution. If the world has changed so much that adhering to the Constitution doesn't work for us anymore, we can change what our Constitution says by amending it.
    Thanks from Jets

  9. #29
    Moderator jacobfitcher's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    7,845
    Thanks
    6650

    From
    Canada
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Then you should like Bret Kavenaugh, he stated he will interpret the Constitution as written. Its more about who you want to interpret the Constitution isn't it? Where does it say in the Constitution that man can marry a man or woman marry a woman? It doesn't , but 9 judges made ruling that now says that. Where does it say a woman can end the life of a fetus in the womb? It doesn't , but 9 justices ruled and now its law. Where does it say a person can't own a gun in the Constitution? It does say you can, but Liberals want 9 justices to say a person can't own a gun. Liberals want a group of puppets they can manipulate to make laws via judicial activism.
    Where does it say a man can't marry a man or woman marry a woman?

  10. #30
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,821
    Thanks
    3054

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    "I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors." ~ Thomas Jefferson
    Legislatures can change the laws, Justices or Judges are supposed to interpret the laws not change them by interpreting them differently. Our represenatives are supposed to represent us and propose new laws or changes we want changed. If we have laws changed with Judges or Justices they are not representing the voters, they are representing a party in control that nominated them. They are not supposed to be a Legislative branch of government, but people that interpret laws .

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 15th November 2017, 12:58 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 29th July 2017, 09:09 AM
  3. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2nd November 2016, 06:51 AM
  4. Numbers Favor Republicans Senate Majority
    By Divine Wind in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 17th February 2013, 03:19 PM
  5. 8-1 USSC Ruling in Favor of Kansas Anti-Gay Church
    By Singularity in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 5th March 2011, 05:39 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed