Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 72
Thanks Tree49Thanks

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

  1. #41
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,557
    Thanks
    37113

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    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?"
    Because he insisted on seeing the Constitution through a myopic lens that caused him to make horrid 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.
    But that process is nearly impossible, meaning that we have to keep the status quo even if it is revolting. Black's decisions only prove why his rule makes no sense.

  2. #42
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    95,652
    Thanks
    73488

    From
    <-- "Meme Boy"
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    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 .
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

  3. #43
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    95,652
    Thanks
    73488

    From
    <-- "Meme Boy"
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    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.
    RIP: Meme Thread
    Thanks from Babba

  4. #44
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    15,339
    Thanks
    4095

    From
    Boise, ID
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Because he insisted on seeing the Constitution through a myopic lens that caused him to make horrid decisions.

    But that process is nearly impossible, meaning that we have to keep the status quo even if it is revolting. Black's decisions only prove why his rule makes no sense.
    So the Constitution is an old out-of-date stale document, we need to modernize, and even though the Constitution lays out its own way to be modernized, "it's too hard."

    It makes some sense that amending the Constitution be difficult, otherwise we'd have a hundred thousand Amendments, and there'd be a dozen new Amendments with every new Administration and omnibus bill, in which case what's the point of even having a Constitution?

    Similarly, if the Supreme Court isn't really supposed to uphold any principles in the Constitution, and should always just nod along with the apparent political whims du jour, what would be the point of even having a Supreme Court? Just to provide some eloquent legalese that explains the political ideas behind the latest laws, as a formality?
    Thanks from Robert Urbanek

  5. #45
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,557
    Thanks
    37113

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Neomalthusian View Post
    So the Constitution is an old out-of-date stale document, we need to modernize, and even though the Constitution lays out its own way to be modernized, "it's too hard."
    No, the Constitution is what it is, but the context around it has changed in ways it's writers couldn't possibly imagine.

    It makes some sense that amending the Constitution be difficult, otherwise we'd have a hundred thousand Amendments, and there'd be a dozen new Amendments with every new Administration and omnibus bill, in which case what's the point of even having a Constitution?
    Actually, most national constitutions are ponderously long documents. The fact that ours has lasted longer than any other written constitution is a tribute to it's simplicity, and to the fact that courts can interpret it differently in different times. We have quite famous and useful changes in decisions, like Plessy vs. Brown, that result from new research into the nature of things. We have others, like the one upholding Japanese internment, that have never been overturned by have been repeatedly repudiated, even in a decision this year. And there are others, like the very dreadful Lochner decision that eroded over time. It's the courts ability to keep the Constitution's ideas working in a completely different world that have allowed it to survive these 225 years or so.

    Similarly, if the Supreme Court isn't really supposed to uphold any principles in the Constitution, and should always just nod along with the apparent political whims du jour, what would be the point of even having a Supreme Court? Just to provide some eloquent legalese that explains the political ideas behind the latest laws, as a formality?
    No, they should interpret the Constitution in its context, which is the present, not the 18th century.

  6. #46
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,821
    Thanks
    3054

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by boontito View Post
    RIP: Meme Thread
    Does the term living , breathing document ring a bell? This is why Liberals are losing their minds over Trumps nomination. They are losing their inside Justice (Kennedy) that helped create their liberal utopia. The thought of their utopia crashing makes them think the sky is falling.

  7. #47
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,821
    Thanks
    3054

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    No, the Constitution is what it is, but the context around it has changed in ways it's writers couldn't possibly imagine.


    No, they should interpret the Constitution in its context, which is the present, not the 18th century.
    See, a living breathing document Liberals believe should be changed by a Liberal judge. The thought of a justice interpreting the Constitution as written is frightening to them. Proof right here folks

  8. #48
    Nuisance Factor Yeti 8 Jungle Swing Champion, YetiSports 4 - Albatross Overload Champion, YetiSports7 - Snowboard FreeRide Champion, Alu`s Revenge Champion boontito's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    95,652
    Thanks
    73488

    From
    <-- "Meme Boy"
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    Does the term living , breathing document ring a bell? This is why Liberals are losing their minds over Trumps nomination. They are losing their inside Justice (Kennedy) that helped create their liberal utopia. The thought of their utopia crashing makes them think the sky is falling.
    You have a messed up view of things. Liberals liked some of Kennedy's rulings just as conservatives liked some of Kennedy's rulings. Liberals also hated some of his decisions. He's very much his own man and doesn't march lockstep. I didn't always agree with him but that's an admirable quality he has. It's also a quality that you don't understand at all.
    Thanks from Rasselas and Ian Jeffrey

  9. #49
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    65,557
    Thanks
    37113

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    See, a living breathing document Liberals believe should be changed by a Liberal judge. The thought of a justice interpreting the Constitution as written is frightening to them. Proof right here folks
    It would frighten me to put anyone from the 18th century in charge of the 21st century, yes.

  10. #50
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,780
    Thanks
    32861

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    We have quite famous and useful changes in decisions, like Plessy vs. Brown, that result from new research into the nature of things.
    You conflated the original case with the one that overturned it. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 overturned Plessy v. Ferguson from 1896.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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