Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 190

Thread: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

  1. #121
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    You argue the ninth amendment by taking it out of context. The ninth amendment was about limiting the power of the Federal government. The intent of the ninth amendment was NOT to have the Federal government gain power by inserting itself into arguments regarding powers that are not specifially enumerated by the Constitution.
    But then we get into things such as the right for gays to marry vs. the right for marriage to be defined by religious organizations. The Constitution doesn't explicitly give gays the right to get married, but then again neither does it explicity give religious organizations the right to define marriage. That's why we have the Ninth Amendment - so the Supreme Court can rule on which side has the unenumerated right.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  2. #122
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    But then we get into things such as the right for gays to marry vs. the right for marriage to be defined by religious organizations. The Constitution doesn't explicitly give gays the right to get married, but then again neither does it explicity give religious organizations the right to define marriage. That's why we have the Ninth Amendment - so the Supreme Court can rule on which side has the unenumerated right.
    wrong wrong wrong: when the BOR was penned, the concept of judicial review was not even a certainty. The reason for the 9th was due to the dispute between "Federalists and anti-Federalists" Some founders did not think a BOR was needed because in their view the Federal government only had the powers SPECIFICALLY delegated to it by the Constitution and it was thus OBVIOUS that the people and the several states retained all powers and rights not specifically given the federal government. Others wanted something like the BOR but obviously all of those inalienable rights could not be listed.



  3. #123
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    I think the first, and most well known case of these two views clashing in a nasty, public way was the nomination and subsequent "Borking" or Robert Bork. It's gone down hill really, since then.
    Well, the Senate has alwas had the power to confirm judges. It's just it wasn't until Robert Bork that the Senate really asserted that authority. Before then, the Senate was just basically a rubber stamp for the President's nominees. It was only after Bork that federal judicial appointments became so politicized.

    Now, on one hand I like that the Senate started exerting it's authority in scrutinizing federal judicial appointments. They have that power in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers did it as a check on the powers of both the President and the Supreme Court.

    However, it should not be overly politicized as it is. This is the probably when the Senate suffers no ill consequences for dragging their feet. Provide such ill consequences (don't pay them until all appointments are made, or give them the power to make appointments but if they don't do it under the deadline give the power to the President) and it'll light a fire under their asses to get the job done.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  4. #124
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    wrong wrong wrong: when the BOR was penned, the concept of judicial review was not even a certainty. The reason for the 9th was due to the dispute between "Federalists and anti-Federalists" Some founders did not think a BOR was needed because in their view the Federal government only had the powers SPECIFICALLY delegated to it by the Constitution and it was thus OBVIOUS that the people and the several states retained all powers and rights not specifically given the federal government. Others wanted something like the BOR but obviously all of those inalienable rights could not be listed.
    ...which is exactly what I've been saying, and why we have both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  5. #125
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    ...which is exactly what I've been saying, and why we have both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments...
    your error was suggesting that the 9th and 10th amendments were designed to allow courts to "create rights" while that has happened that certainly was not the intent



  6. #126
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    your error was suggesting that the 9th and 10th amendments were designed to allow courts to "create rights" while that has happened that certainly was not the intent
    Well, not quite.

    What I'm saying is that the 9th was designed to allow courts to protect unenumerated rights, which was the intent just from the language of the 9th.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  7. #127
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,700

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Well, not quite.

    What I'm saying is that the 9th was designed to allow courts to protect unenumerated rights, which was the intent just from the language of the 9th.
    so judicial review was what you claim the founders had in mind when that amendment was adopted?



  8. #128
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,274

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Well, not quite.

    What I'm saying is that the 9th was designed to allow courts to protect unenumerated rights, which was the intent just from the language of the 9th.

    Well, that's not quite what you said either....You said -

    That's why we have the Ninth Amendment - so the Supreme Court can rule on which side has the unenumerated right.
    That suggests that the SC has the power to grant, or not grant rights....This would fundementally be wrong.


    j-mac
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  9. #129
    Guru
    GPS_Flex's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    02-11-17 @ 11:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    "Legislating from the bench" is simply a code phrase for "ruling I don't like". It has pretty much zero meaning.
    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    I couldn't disagree more. “Legislating from the bench” occurs when a court overreaches its Article III constitutional authority and creates law. Do you deny this occurs?
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Of course it is evolving, and has evolved since it was written.
    Quote Originally Posted by GPS_Flex View Post
    Only through amendments. The only legal evolution of the constitution that has occured has been through the amendment process.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    This would be false, as any number of rulings by SCOTUS and lower courts show.
    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    So the problem is that activist judges are ones that you disagree with. Thank you for proving my point.
    You are playing semantics here while coming full circle and contradicting yourself. You say there is no such thing as “legislating from the bench”, then you say the constitution is supposed to “evolve” through judicial interpretation???



    I really don’t care what you call it and I really don’t care if SCOTUS has done it in the past. If the SCOTUS makes de facto changes to the constitution, that is “legislating from the bench” and it is subversion of the constitution. Maybe we can agree on some basic principles though.

    Would you agree that all power not delegated to the federal government was, and still is, reserved to the states and the people?

    Do you agree that the framers of the constitution intended to have the judicial branch of government remain as non-political as possible?

    "Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."
    John F. Kennedy
    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    It would seem that the constitution is just a god damn piece of paper, to be trotted out when expedient.

  10. #130
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Well, that's not quite what you said either....You said -



    That suggests that the SC has the power to grant, or not grant rights....This would fundementally be wrong.
    No. SCOTUS doesn't have the power to grant or not grant rights. Rather, they have the power to clarify rights since the Constitution admits it does not exhaustively list all rights people have.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

Page 13 of 19 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •