Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 72
Thanks Tree49Thanks

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

  1. #31
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,765
    Thanks
    3053

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Sampson Simpson View Post
    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
    I understand what a justice is supposed to do, but its become very political about who is interpreting the Constitution and what party they belong to. A Conservative Justice may look at the second amendment and understand people have the right to defend themselves. A Liberal Justice may look at the second amendment and think its out of date and we need gun control. Two Judges can interpret the same doctrine differently

  2. #32
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,936
    Thanks
    31842

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

    What it means to whom today?

    Liberals.

    LOL!!
    If the majority of the American people have 'liberal' beliefs then that is whom it matters to.

    In the latest polls confidence in religion is at an all time low. Participation in organized religion is dropping so it time that our government and the court reflect that secularism.

    Gone are the days where a privileged few dictated and shaped the majority of laws written for the masses of people in this country.

    The Republican party is already out of step with vast numbers of progressives in the GOP. ...We hear everyday from Republicans that the party has left them behind. People are leaving the GOP in droves or are asking that Republicans vote Democrat.

    What ever Trump does on the SC. And how ever the court turns out...the power is still in the majority to change the Constitution to what we want it to mean.

    We have not passed any amendments since the 1960s on civil rights. We, with the help of moderate Republicans, can pass amendments on reproductive rights, gender and orientation rights, voter rights, and election and Presidential restrictions.

  3. #33
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,765
    Thanks
    3053

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobfitcher View Post
    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.
    Was that in the Constitution about slavery and only white men could own property? That Legislature makes laws the Supreme court interprets laws. Why do you think the court should change our laws?

  4. #34
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,765
    Thanks
    3053

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by jacobfitcher View Post
    Where does it say a man can't marry a man or woman marry a woman?
    Marriage laws originated by the states and judges decided marriage between two of the same sex was right and overturned state marriage laws. That is called legislating from the bench, Obama was good at promoting that idea.

  5. #35
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,936
    Thanks
    31842

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Was that in the Constitution about slavery and only white men could own property? That Legislature makes laws the Supreme court interprets laws. Why do you think the court should change our laws?
    Because that is the function of the courts. When a unjust law is written, the Constitution gives the court to authority to act if the legislature does not.

    Case in point. Donald Trump wanted a Muslim ban. Donald had re-write the EO...several times before it became lawful for him to implement.

    The SC did not write the EO, The courts just made sure a version that was not unconstitutional was written.
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 11th July 2018 at 11:35 AM.

  6. #36
    Dick with my Buzz...Try DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    36,936
    Thanks
    31842

    From
    SWUSA
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Marriage laws originated by the states and judges decided marriage between two of the same sex was right and overturned state marriage laws. That is called legislating from the bench, Obama was good at promoting that idea.
    State marriage laws still exist. No one overturned state marriage laws.

    What the court said is that the states could not discriminate in the application of the laws.

    Totally different

    In 1967, the Supreme Court said that states could not discriminate on the basis of race [ Loving v Virginia ] in the application of their marriage laws.

    How is so hard to understand?
    Last edited by DebateDrone; 11th July 2018 at 11:42 AM.

  7. #37
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,765
    Thanks
    3053

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Because that is the function of the courts. When a unjust law is written, the Constitution gives the court to authority to act if the legislature does not.

    Case in point. Donald Trump wanted a Muslim ban. Donald had re-write the EO...several times before it became lawful for him to implement.

    The SC did not write the EO, The courts just made sure a version that was not unconstitutional was written.
    I am sure you agree with the latest ruling on Trumps travel ban from the Supreme court, right?On Tuesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the most recent version of the travel ban in Trump v. Hawaii. This isn’t the same executive order that generated a huge backlash in the early days of Trump’s presidency. That order banned all people from seven majority-Muslim countries for 90 days and nearly all refugees for 120 days — and was struck down by the courts.

    This latest executive order, the administration’s third try at a travel ban, doesn’t just apply to majority-Muslim countries, but also North Korea and Venezuela.

    So how did Trump finally get his travel ban? This chart shows the three executive orders and the times lower courts struck them down, all leading up to Tuesday’s Supreme Court ruling that allows the most recent ban to continue.https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...rump-flowchart

  8. #38
    A Blue Dog Jets Fan Jets's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    20,735
    Thanks
    8445

    From
    New York
    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
    Let’s also include the cases that involved Justice Blacks support of incorporating the bill of rights into the fourteenth amendment, thus applying them to the states. In these cases he was with the majority or concurred.

    Engle v Vitale-establishment clause

    Abington school district v Schemp-school prayer

    Mapp v Ohio- exclusionary rule

    Gideon v Wainwright- Right to counsel in criminal cases

    Miranda v Arizona- Miranda rights

    Wesberry v Sanders-apportionment
    Reynolds v Sims””

    Duncan v Louisiana-right to trial by jury

    NYT V US- prior restraint (granted not an incorporated case)

    Just my opinion here, but he has been on the right side in many cases that came before him. In addition, one of the reasons he was chosen by Roosevelt was to counteract the four horsemen applying substantive due process to strike down various pieces of New Deal legislation. SDP was also used to justify Dred Scott as well as the Lochner Era cases. I also do not agree that a Justice is on the wrong side because he objects to SDP.
    Last edited by Jets; 11th July 2018 at 01:37 PM.

  9. #39
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,765
    Thanks
    3053

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    State marriage laws still exist. No one overturned state marriage laws.

    What the court said is that the states could not discriminate in the application of the laws.

    Totally different

    In 1967, the Supreme Court said that states could not discriminate on the basis of race [ Loving v Virginia ] in the application of their marriage laws.

    How is so hard to understand?
    Pretty easy to understand. Most judges appointed by Clinton and Obama overturned marriage laws and disenfranchised their votes, Judicial activism. Due to the activism by Liberals they are struck with a lot of fear right now because what Trump is doing by appointing more Conservatives to the court.

  10. #40
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,765
    Thanks
    3053

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    Because that is the function of the courts. When a unjust law is written, the Constitution gives the court to authority to act if the legislature does not.

    Case in point. Donald Trump wanted a Muslim ban. Donald had re-write the EO...several times before it became lawful for him to implement.

    The SC did not write the EO, The courts just made sure a version that was not unconstitutional was written.
    That's what liberals do, but Conservatives go by the Constitution. Justices don't make up laws as they go because they feel something is wrong. Legislatures make laws and Judges interpret them, they don't change them to suit their parties interest.
    Thanks from orangecat

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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