Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Open Discussion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Open Discussion Discuss How should a justice vote? at the General Forum; Originally Posted by cnredd And your Constitutional basis for this question is???????.... You don't understand the Constitution is meaningless to ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 06:50 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,177
Thanks: 9,180
Thanked 9,767 Times in 5,963 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cnredd View Post
And your Constitutional basis for this question is???????....
You don't understand the Constitution is meaningless to the Resistance if it interferes with their campaign of political sabotage. The same is true of the presumption of innocence, it is an outmoded concept when it interferes with the Resistance lynch mob.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 08:22 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,189
Thanks: 8,692
Thanked 7,141 Times in 4,313 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave1 View Post
I agree.....



And yet, some votes follow party lines....
Nearly all votes follow party lines.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 08:25 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,189
Thanks: 8,692
Thanked 7,141 Times in 4,313 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
What, in your mind, constitutes being a "key figure" in a criminal investigation?

At there any boundaries to that "description?" or just liberal hyperbole?

There are no warrants out for TRUMP In fact Mueller has stated publically that Trump is not under investigation. So you must be talking about someone who isn't currently, the President.
The other candidate?
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 08:39 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,189
Thanks: 8,692
Thanked 7,141 Times in 4,313 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

One thing I foresee as a LW tactic is the use of lower court judges, which are currently predominately LW activists, to rule in the LW favor and then slow walk it up the ladder until when it finally reaches SCOTUS the point is moot. It's already happened, notably the temporary suspension of entrants from certain countries until we could get a handle on how to deal with the issue.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to jimbo For This Useful Post:
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 11:00 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,661
Thanks: 9,565
Thanked 5,808 Times in 3,926 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by pjohns View Post
It is a point often overlooked by the left--or, at least, glossed over--but I really cannot imagine a more important question, viz.:
Should a Supreme Court justice vote according to the results that he (or she) desires, or according to his (or her) understanding of the Constitution?
The problem with the former, I believe, is that it treats the SCOTUS as some form of superlegislature: Whatever liberals cannot accomplish through the Congress, they can probably get through judicial activism.
In my opinion, a Supreme Court justice--if he or she is any good--will sometimes vote for an obviously bad result, if that means upholding the Constitution.
Thoughts?
agreed

many people agree with this as long as their ox isn't being gored.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 11:03 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,661
Thanks: 9,565
Thanked 5,808 Times in 3,926 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
The President can think and make decisions based on public policy motivations. He get elected every four years.

The Legislature can think and make legislations based on public policy motivations. They seek re-election every two years or six years.
These two branches of the government respond to the public will. Demonstrations outside congress and the White House are appropriate.

However, the SCOTUS should be a sanctum of Constitutional law influence only by the words and intent of the original construction of the compact. It I amendable but can never be malleable. Or it becomes no more a binding contract than a bill of sale with a handshake at a gravel car lot.

The SCOTUS should never see, much less respond or respect, a citizen demonstration on their doorstep. Any such action should be entirely ignored by the Justices in their deliberations. Sterile deliberations that should focus only on the law itself. No politics, gender, race or moral bias.
the president and the congress both SWEAR that they'll uphold and defend the Constitution as well as the Supreme Court.
There's no excuse for any elected or appointed official to 'blow with the winds' of public opinion or cultural pressures when the Constitution is in question.

Since the constitution is the highest law of the land if any President or Congressperson proposes actions/legislations that go against it , then they are breaking their oaths. And If they themselves act or order actions that are against it, they are at that point lawbreakers. "illegals".

politics and Protest should only change the constitution by amendment, not by willy nilly executive actions or congressional legislation.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 11:13 AM
mr wonder's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Virginia
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,661
Thanks: 9,565
Thanked 5,808 Times in 3,926 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by saltwn View Post
According to the law. Constitution and amendments. whatever congress passes into law must be weighed against those if challenged. There is a process and I believe and hope Brett K knows it well. For instance if something has been brought up several times and had the same ruling, providing nothing drastic has changed since, there's no need to go to square one. However if society has been drastically changed , by say science or womens suffrage, etc., there might be pieces of a statute interpreted specifically in light of that change.
If the legislation or status quo is clearly unconstitutional then inertia is no reason to not to make "drastic" changes.

probably more reason for it.

but Roe V wade was "drastic" and the homosexual marriage decision was "drastic" and a change to the 200+ (2000?) years of status quo. And those rulings had little to ZERO legal or constitutional merit. But you didn't hear the left defended the status quo prior to those.

the Constitutional standard would toss a LOT of issues it back to the states where they clearly belong constitutionally.

And there's no changes in science that would change the Constitution.
and women's suffrage was correctly handled by amendment.
BTW in that case voting is mentioned in the Constitution, while marriage and many other issues are not mentioned or even hinted at.
__________________
Hope is the dream of the waking man.
Aristotle

For there is hope of a tree, if it be cut down, that it will sprout again, and that the tender branch thereof will not cease.
Job 14:6-8
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 11:20 AM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,015
Thanks: 950
Thanked 1,152 Times in 729 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

I think the justices should vote according to the text of the Constitution, Bill of Rights and added amendments.As well as the intent of the people who wrote the Constitution,Bill of Rights and additional amendments. Anyone trying to use the living document excuse to create rights that don't exist or to squash rights that do exist, empathy or citing foreign law should be removed immediately from the supreme court.
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 11:57 AM
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Tennessee
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,230
Thanks: 9,734
Thanked 3,728 Times in 2,442 Posts
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Here is an example of a SCOTUS ruling that had a very beneficial effect, in my opinion--but was really not grounded in the Constitution:

In Loving v. Virginia--just over 50 years ago--the High Court ruled that interracial couples may marry.

And that was very beneficial, in my opinion. (I can see no moral or practical reason why they should be prohibited from doing so.)

But I can see no Constitutional reasoning to back this up.

The same may be said for Roe v. Wade.

And for Griswold v. Connecticut (which really provided the predicate for Roe).

Again, I would much prefer to look to the Constitution--without any regard for what I might consider the better result...
__________________
"In his second inaugural address, [Franklin D.] Roosevelt sought 'unimagined power' to enforce the 'proper subordination' of private power to public power. He got it…"—George Will, July 8, 2007
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 07-11-2018, 04:31 PM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 77,077
Thanks: 54,268
Thanked 25,778 Times in 18,364 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: How should a justice vote?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr wonder View Post
If the legislation or status quo is clearly unconstitutional then inertia is no reason to not to make "drastic" changes.

probably more reason for it.

but Roe V wade was "drastic" and the homosexual marriage decision was "drastic" and a change to the 200+ (2000?) years of status quo. And those rulings had little to ZERO legal or constitutional merit. But you didn't hear the left defended the status quo prior to those.

the Constitutional standard would toss a LOT of issues it back to the states where they clearly belong constitutionally.

And there's no changes in science that would change the Constitution.
and women's suffrage was correctly handled by amendment.
BTW in that case voting is mentioned in the Constitution, while marriage and many other issues are not mentioned or even hinted at.
First: Nothing changes the Constitution.

The way it is interpreted may change as we learn, discoveries are made and absorbed. Etcetera.

As for RvW, it was high time doctors were left to make a decision about a medical problem without the STATE interfering. That is what most women my age hoped it would bring. Instead it brought MORE government intervention because it was ruled on the privacy act. The decision absolutely changed society. Society had not changed previously, you're correct. Abortion had not been ruled on in the highest court. it was illegal or legal by statute or code of individual states. fyi: there was a rise of abortions in the 19th century
Putting that aside, there was hope it would free doctors as I said to prescribe and carry out the procedure if they deemed it necessary. And doctors through early history (US) through 1973 had learned about quickening, a conception being precursor to a human being from start to finish, and were anti-abortion, unless medically necessary.
the can of worm rvw opened up is that after civil rights, each political party wanted to define a demographic they could appeal to and here was the ideal candidate.
so each side pushes all or nothing.
It is my hope Brett K does as he has said he would if ever confronted with abortion rulings on SC. Allowed but regulated.
In the present climate of BLUE vs RED, that is the best I can hope for.
__________________
Mueller is good at witch hunting. Its raining witches. America is GREAT.

Doreen E
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
how, justice, should, vote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:30 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0