Weren't Supreme Court Justices suppose to be detached and impartial?

Liberals on the Supreme court lost their way a long long time ago, eroding our values, the values our forefathers intended to keep in-tact by constructing maybe the most well written document toward a free democratic society ever known.

But as I stated, no more, trump has and will further add enough constutionaly solid individuals to life long appointments that most of us will never have to witness our constitution being pissed on again in our lifetimes. 6-3 is pretty solid, and that's minimum, we may see a 7-2 majority.

MAGA
 
Craig234 said:
No, Democrats are in favor of accurately applying the constitution, not ignoring where it says things like all rights that are included not being explicitly listed.

You miss the bigger picture on flag burning - that it's yet another issue the right uses to divide the public to it can keep forcing plutocracy on the country.
Click to expand...

Still awaiting your opinion on the Second Amendment, Craig (and that of many other liberals/progressives). Tell us about "accurately applying the constitution..."
 
Craig234 said:
No, Democrats are in favor of accurately applying the constitution, not ignoring where it says things like all rights that are included not being explicitly listed.
Click to expand...

lol the living document doctrine is not an accurate interpretation and it explicitly states in Amendment 10 that all powers not granted to the Federal Government are left to the states or the people. You people are not talking about the inalienable rights of the people not listed you are talking about powers you want to grant to the Federal Government; such as, mandating the purchase of healthcare or federal funding for abortion.
 
Cool 90's Kid said:
The liberal interpretation of the constitution can be referred to simply as "the constitution". The conservative interpretation is some bullshit they pulled out of their asses to shove their ideology down their throat.

Also this is you irl:

Click to expand...

that video makes a lot of sense if I do say
 
Craig234 said:
The Republican side is a radical agenda to destroy the constitutional protections for the people. The Federalist Society is the organization that recruits members and radicalizes them and nurtures them throughout their careers, giving them jobs and advancement. The last several Republican nominations to the Supreme Court were handed to the president by the Society; George W. Bush replaces the bar association with the Federalist Society as the official evaluator (since Eisenshower) of all judicial nominations.
Click to expand...

links
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/neil-gorsuch-supreme-court.html


Neil Gorsuch Has Web of Ties to Secretive Billionaire
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and JULIE TURKEWITZMARCH 14, 2017



Al Drago/The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The publicity-shy billionaire Philip F. Anschutz inherited an oil and gas firm and built it into an empire that has sprawled into telecommunications, railroads, real estate, resorts, sports teams, stadiums, movies and conservative publications like The Weekly Standard and The Washington Examiner.
Mr. Anschutz’s influence is especially felt in his home state of Colorado, where years ago Judge Neil M. Gorsuch, a Denver native, the son of a well-known Colorado Republican and now President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court, was drawn into his orbit.
As a lawyer at a Washington law firm in the early 2000s, Judge Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz, his companies and lower-ranking business executives as an outside counsel. In 2006, Mr. Anschutz successfully lobbied Colorado’s lone Republican senator and the Bush administration to nominate Judge Gorsuch to the federal appeals court. And since joining the court, Judge Gorsuch has been a semiregular speaker at the mogul’s annual dove-hunting retreats for the wealthy and politically prominent at his 60-square-mile Eagles Nest Ranch.
“They say a country’s prosperity depends on three things: sound money, private property and the rule of law,” Judge Gorsuch said at the 2010 retreat, according to his speaker notes from that year. “This crowd hardly needs to hear from me about the first two of the problems we face on those scores.”
With the Senate Judiciary Committee set to take up Judge Gorsuch’s nomination next week, Democrats have based much of their criticism of him on the argument that his judicial and economic philosophy unduly favors corporations and the wealthy. But his relationship with Mr. Anschutz, 77, whose fortune is estimated by Forbes to be $12.6 billion, has received scant attention.
 
So Desh you're back to the idea that anyone who supports free(er) markets wants anarchy and no government? I was about to ask how long you will continue with that straw man but that is a rhetorical question.
 
RB 60 said:
Still awaiting your opinion on the Second Amendment, Craig (and that of many other liberals/progressives). Tell us about "accurately applying the constitution..."
Click to expand...

The first thing to note about the second is its vague qualities - the context of a well-regulated militia being needed to protect the country when did not have a standing national army (or national guard), what the word "arms" includes, for example.

That's a reason the Supreme Court did not rule on the specific meanings that aren't there for over 200 years.

So, my answer is that a wide variety of 'interpretations' of the second can be defended. And that obviously, the court has now picked some of those specifics.

So I'm not sure what your question is, unless it's to try to derail the discussion into a screeching exchange about the second, and I'll let my post stand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top