Republiacn Senators ask Obama to violate the Constitution!

Stelakh said:
I think the real problem here is that both sides of the argument don't bother to stop and think about what being a Supreme Court Justice should mean - even the Justices don't (Justice Scalia certainly didn't, and said so, saying that they can "favor religion over non-religion").

The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to be objective and steadfast in interpretation of the Constitution and how legislation in the United States measures up to Constitutional standards and requirements. In fact, the role of any judge is to be objective and impartial.

Taking the same-sex marriage case as an example, the approach from both sides was, I believe, simply wrong.

It was not a question of, "Gays should be allowed to marry" v "Gays should not be allowed to marry". It was a question of equality as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitutional guarantee of equality, through the 14th Amendment, is fairly clear, if read objectively: Laws must be leveled equally and not favor one group over another. That's really the end of the argument. If two consenting adults wish to marry, then by the 14th Amendment, they have that right, because marriage is a civil ceremony dictated by law that does not require any religious involvement at all.

So it should have been quite simple: "The 14th Amendment says equal protection under the law. We're done here. LUNCH!"

And that, friends, is the actual role of a Supreme Court Justice - to rule objectively based upon the Constitution.

It was the insertion of religious beliefs that muddied the waters and made the entire situation much more harrowing than it should have been. But that is the nature of our Justices today. None of them interpret objectively based strictly on the Constitution.

That's where the problem lies.
Click to expand...

Religion in the gay marriage debate was a strawman.

But I agree with the rest of it.
 
Rune said:
Surely you are confused.
I am a Christian, but not a fundamentalist.
So again, please state what is so obvious.
I assure you I will simply acknowledge it not attack it.
Click to expand...

Against my better judgment I will give this one shot. Whether you or I would like to admit it or not, justices are politically influenced. None of them are apolitical. Scalia was a conservative and his votes tended that way. Obama, a liberal, appointing a new justice would logically appoint one of similar cloth of Sotomayor ... a more liberal justice. That would shift the balance of power to the liberal side in most rulings. In most cases that wouldn't matter. In fact, I don't think there's any going back on Roe v. Wade. I think it's a done deal nothing I or Ben Carsen would do if we had the power would change it. Same with gay marriage. One of the things that is in play is a decision to be made on the teachers union case from California. I believe there needs to be options. I am a member of a more conservative teachers organization than the OEA (and to be a member of the OEA you have to be a member of the NEA and I definitely do not agree politically with them) and am appreciative of that option. I believe such an option ought to be available to others. It is likely going to be a 4-4 split now. Another ruling that was great for me to see was the ruling in 2008 that stated that the constitution gave the individual the right to bear arms. That was a 5-4 vote. In my mind right now, Scalia was the difference. If that was revisited it is obvious to me that any justice President Obama would appoint would tilt that vote 5-4 the other way.

So you see, I think for most of us it has nothing to do with what color President Obama is. And for desh to bring it up every single time something like this goes down does nothing but diminish the real racism that goes on in this country.

My "lol" and "whatever" was for your implication that I am an idiot for supporting Ben Carson. It had nothing to do with my response above. But you've been around long enough to know that's who I am. I am a fundamental, religious conservative when it comes to who I support and that takes precedence for me. I would have voted for Mike Huckabee had I had the opportunity and I would definitely vote for Ben Carson if I had the chance. As it is I will likely vote for Bernie Sanders and the see what happens. I cannot see myself holding my nose and voting for Trump if the devil gets the R nod and I definitely won't vote for Hillary Clinton.

But do note on the other thread that I believe that the political obstructionism promised by the republicans is wrong. Obama should appoint whomever he deems fit and the Senate should vet and then confirm. To me that is the way the system should work. And while I will likely not agree with the appointed justice I do realize that I am not in the majority. But I still have opinions.
 
Last edited:
leaningright said:
I absolutely agree with this. We are going to hear so many conspiracy theories before this is all over. It's crazy. The man was elderly, overweight and smoked. Not a good combination for a long life. He had a decently long one and it appears that it was his time to go.
Click to expand...
Actually I heard from good sources that the resort he was at is actually a bordello and that maybe Mr. Scalia had just a little too much fun that night. ;)
 
christiefan915 said:
He wasn't feeling well before he went to bed. The owner of the ranch said he was lying peacefully and looked as if he were taking a nap. We should all be so lucky to go that way.
Click to expand...
Shoot.....I can't think of a better way to go than dying peacefully with a contented smile on my face at a Bunny Ranch. :)
 
Jarod said:
Article II Section 2.

The President shall nominate Judges of the supreme Court.


It does not say that the president should, can or might nominate Judges of the Supreme Court... it says SHALL..


Now you have the Republican leader of the Senate calling for Obama to chose not to appoint a judge. You have Republican canididates, including strict constructionists, and self described defenders of "original intent" saying that the President should NOT appoint a judge.


I thought they claimed to be the ones demanding the Constitution be followed.... Shows how full of SHIT they are.
Click to expand...

Where is the constitution does it say there must be 9 justices? According to you, Obama should simply keep appointing justices forever.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Yeah, stonewall and obstruct for 340+ days and see how the American people feel about it come November
Click to expand...
That is, IF they keep their word. The GOP has a recent history of folding like a cheap suit in "uncomfortable" situations. And who cares how you dems are going to "feel"? The GOP will likely gain a better reputation among the base if they hold the line this time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top