• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court puts Obama's Clean Power Plan on hold

disneydude said:
In an idealist world you are correct. But don't kid yourself that Republican candidates are going to appoint activist judges who will side with corporations to rule against environmental legislation. The Roberts court is already extremely pro-corporation vs. the rights of the individual
Click to expand...
No, only liberals ask themselves these questions. "Who will they side with" :roll: "who will they have empathy with".

that's announcing from the start you intend to Corrupt the prices. It's like electing a President based on which wall street bank they are most beholden to.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Absolutely. Their job is to side with the law, regardless of the policy or the parties involved. The Judge on the bench should care absolutely nothing for social justice, environmentalism, wise tax policy, of political fallout. They should care only about the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS sides with.jpg

You were about 115,000 search results away from being correct. :)
 
cpwill said:
No, only liberals ask themselves these questions. "Who will they side with" :roll: "who will they have empathy with".

that's announcing from the start you intend to Corrupt the prices. It's like electing a President based on which wall street bank they are most beholden to.
Click to expand...

If you actually believe that, you are very naïve.
 
Phys251 said:
So the Supreme Court disagrees with everyone?
Click to expand...

the SCOTUS is supposed to be a neutral body that examines any laws based on the constitution and the constitution alone.
if what congress or the president or any government agency is attempting to thwart the constitution then it is the job of
the SCOTUS to stop them regardless of their beliefs or ideology.

ever sense the marshall court the SCOTUS has become more political than judicial. where the ideology of the judges affect their
rules not the constitution. that is a huge danger in my opinion.

if a judge cannot rule based on the constitution as they are supposed to then they should be disbarred.
I don't care which judge it is. they take an oath of office to defend the constitution not their political ideology.

same goes with the president or any other member of congress.
if you violate your oath then you should be disqualified from serving office.

yet you see the political ideology all the time in these 5/4 split cases.
very few if any of the cases should be 5/4 splits if the judges are following the constitution.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
:roll: So, you fail at reading comprehension.



Retreat to Semantics because the argument he is addressing is correct.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was making a joke. No harm no foul.
 
cpwill said:
:roll: So, you fail at reading comprehension.

Retreat to Semantics because the argument he is addressing is correct.
Click to expand...

You said, and I quote:

cpwill said:
: face palm: [It's not the Supreme Courts job to side with anyone [/I]. In fact, it's their job not to.
Click to expand...

Those are your words, not mine. Yet a Google search for "Supreme Court sides with" came up with over a hundred thousand results. Maybe your Google doesn't come up with any results for that search?
 
ludin said:
the SCOTUS is supposed to be a neutral body that examines any laws based on the constitution and the constitution alone.
if what congress or the president or any government agency is attempting to thwart the constitution then it is the job of
the SCOTUS to stop them regardless of their beliefs or ideology.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is a framework. It is not a narrowly-defining set of laws or rules. The Founders knew this when they wrote it.

ever sense the marshall court the SCOTUS has become more political than judicial. where the ideology of the judges affect their
rules not the constitution. that is a huge danger in my opinion.

if a judge cannot rule based on the constitution as they are supposed to then they should be disbarred.
I don't care which judge it is. they take an oath of office to defend the constitution not their political ideology.

same goes with the president or any other member of congress.
if you violate your oath then you should be disqualified from serving office.

yet you see the political ideology all the time in these 5/4 split cases.
very few if any of the cases should be 5/4 splits if the judges are following the constitution.
Click to expand...

Those are your opinions, and you are entitled to them.
 
cpwill said:
: face palm: [It's not the Supreme Courts job to side with anyone [/I]. In fact, it's their job not to.
Click to expand...

Nope, they are presented with two side's arguments and usually make a call (or no call) favoring one of them. Their job is to (pretend to?) interpret the constitution as they see fit.
 
disneydude said:
In an idealist world you are correct. But don't kid yourself that Republican candidates are going to appoint activist judges who will side with corporations to rule against environmental legislation. The Roberts court is already extremely pro-corporation vs. the rights of the individual
Click to expand...

Don't kid yourself that Democrat candidates are not going to appoint judges who will side with the government against the people and the Constitution. We already have four on there now that do so on almost every vote.
 
Phys251 said:
The Constitution is a framework. It is not a narrowly-defining set of laws or rules. The Founders knew this when they wrote it.



Those are your opinions, and you are entitled to them.
Click to expand...

thank you for not refuting anything I said.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Don't kid yourself that Democrat candidates are not going to appoint judges who will side with the government against the people and the Constitution. We already have four on there now that do so on almost every vote.
Click to expand...

I'm not kidding myself. I have said many times before the both sides appoint justices that have an idealogical bent. While I agree that the court should be non-political and neutral, the reality is that it isn't. But people who pretend that Republicans are not going to appoint justices with a right-wing bent are completely naïve.
 
disneydude said:
Further proof that if you care about the environment....having clean air and water, and you care about a Supreme Court that isn't going to side with the polluters and corporation s 100% of the time...its now more important than ever to vote for the Democratic candidate.
Click to expand...

After Obamacare you actually believe the Obama administration can write honest legislation? I suggest Americans need to develop longer memories. There's no way I would trust the "stupid voters" crew with even setting speed limits
 
disneydude said:
I'm not kidding myself. I have said many times before the both sides appoint justices that have an idealogical bent. While I agree that the court should be non-political and neutral, the reality is that it isn't. But people who pretend that Republicans are not going to appoint justices with a right-wing bent are completely naïve.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree, but Stevens, O'Conner, Kennedy and Souter totally kills any validity to your accusation against Republicans.
 
Phys251 said:
You said, and I quote:

Those are your words, not mine. Yet a Google search for "Supreme Court sides with" came up with over a hundred thousand results. Maybe your Google doesn't come up with any results for that search?
Click to expand...

It was argued that the SCOTUS needs to "side with" environmentalists. That is not its' job. It is supposed to side with the law, and not care about the nature of the plaintiffs. You are attempting to use lazy semantics and argue that because the SCOTUS has decided that the law came down on one side or the other, that they were "siding with" that side, rather than the law.

now - they may be doing that. They did that in the Oberfell decision. But that is not their job.
 
Phys251 said:
You said, and I quote:



Those are your words, not mine. Yet a Google search for "Supreme Court sides with" came up with over a hundred thousand results. Maybe your Google doesn't come up with any results for that search?
Click to expand...

All of those search results in your pic were headlines from news agencies. That was lame dude. Google + headline= legal definition?
 
Beaudreaux said:
I don't necessarily disagree, but Stevens, O'Conner, Kennedy and Souter totally kills any validity to your accusation against Republicans.
Click to expand...

Yeah....I think if you go back a few decades it was a different issue. But don't kid yourself....I think it was specifically BECAUSE of Souter that both Republicans and Democrats started secretly litmus testing their selections.
 
ludin said:
thank you for not refuting anything I said.
Click to expand...

None of which were even worth addressing. Free speech includes the right to make ridiculous and absurd claims. :)
 
cpwill said:
It was argued that the SCOTUS needs to "side with" environmentalists. That is not its' job. It is supposed to side with the law, and not care about the nature of the plaintiffs. You are attempting to use lazy semantics and argue that because the SCOTUS has decided that the law came down on one side or the other, that they were "siding with" that side, rather than the law.

now - they may be doing that. They did that in the Oberfell decision. But that is not their job.
Click to expand...

You are guilty of the very sin that you accuse me of. I clearly showed what was at best a sloppy use of the words "sides with." You are attacking the messenger for pointing out your error.

You made the original point. You back it up. You will not attack the messenger to win a debate.
 
NonoBadDog said:
All of those search results in your pic were headlines from news agencies. That was lame dude. Google + headline= legal definition?
Click to expand...

Don't let the facts get in your way.
 
Phys251 said:
You are guilty of the very sin that you accuse me of. I clearly showed what was at best a sloppy use of the words "sides with." You are attacking the messenger for pointing out your error.

You made the original point. You back it up. You will not attack the messenger to win a debate.
Click to expand...
:roll: no, you are the one attempting to use sloppy language to make a semantic argument. Google headlines notwithstanding.
 
cpwill said:
:roll: no, you are the one attempting to use sloppy language to make a semantic argument. Google headlines notwithstanding.
Click to expand...

By all means, please continue to defend a talking point that was ridiculously to refute.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom