Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 190

Thread: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

  1. #161
    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 Bodhisattva View Post
    Does the Constitution distinguish between intent of words though? It just says that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There aren't any provisions that I am aware of. Are there provisions? We can either say whatever we want, whenever we want... or we can't.

    My point is, that if congress or laws say that we can't say whatever we want, whenever we want and it is passed and considered Constitutional, then we have an evolving document. If it is UnConstitutional, then you are advocating that a person could run around screaming that all niggers should leave the country or that ol' fire in a crowded theatre adage would be fine... right?
    You asked a litany of great questions. Unfortunately we are veering off topic enough to give me pause. I donít hold much favor with the powers that be around these parts and there were already a couple bans a few pages back so consider this a mulligan.

    Perhaps I can best sum up an answer to all of your questions without getting off topic by saying that Iím a textualist first, an originalist second with a heavy dose of constructionist thrown in to round things off. I obviously frown on ex post facto interpretations too.

    "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.

  2. #162
    Global Moderator
    The Truth is out there.
    Kal'Stang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Bonners Ferry ID USA
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,897
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    What's the problem? We're quite a few judges short?

    The problem could be a significant over abundance of nutjob, fring judges, legislating from the bench.

    The current system, while not perfect, will not and should not be changed. If we do things your way, there will be no checks and balances within the judicial branch. That would be a problem.
    What exactly are the checks and balances on SCOTUS? The only real one that there is is impeachment. And I see no reason that cannot be kept with in the Senates control. You do know that I am just talking strictly about appointments right?

    The problem that this thread has identified is that it takes the Senate so freaking long to appoint judges due to partisanship. The D's try to stop or stall the R's choices and the R's do the same to the D's. They do this to try and get a judge that is sympathetic to their cause on the bench so that there is a less likely chance that if a law they pass gets brought before the Court that it will get struck down. I would argue that by doing this they are subverting the very purpose that SCOTUS was made for. And that is to keep the Legislative and Executive branches from screwing over the people. My solution would solve that and still keep the essential check and balance in place.

    btw, what did you think of the other suggestion that I had?
    Last edited by Kal'Stang; 01-03-11 at 04:17 AM.
    I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang

    My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang

  3. #163
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    The only way to fix the problem is to stop the source of it. The reason there is partisan fighting is because there is partisan appointing. Democrats and Republicans both appoint judges they believe will be in favor of their agendas and will be hold similar legal philosophies when it comes to rulings. They don't appoint judges based on merit or non-biased review and rulings of the law, they appoint them based on party allegiance and partisan gain. This needs to stop first.
    Look back to how the Dems treated Robert Bork...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  4. #164
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    What you don't get is that the right should approve or not approve nominees based on their qualifications, not on whether or not Obama didn't vote for Bush's nominees.
    Problem with the left on such matters is that it is always "do as I say, not as I do." Do you think for one minute that the left won't return to their delaying, blocking tactics if there were a Republican president in 2013 should the Republicans step aside and do what Obama himself as Senator wouldn't do? These tactics from the Dems date back to the 1980s...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  5. #165
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    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.
    No it doesn't. It means that the judicial branch should rely strictly on the Constitution and NOT on things like what other societies do or what they think should be the right thing to do...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  6. #166
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    That's a problem since different folks view what the Constitution say differently. Terms need to be redefined based on modern times. If not, the entire Constitution should be scrapped and rewritten every 50 years or so.
    See bold -- there is a provision for that in the Constitution
    see unbolded -- there is NOT a provision for that in the Constitution...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  7. #167
    Defender of the Faith
    ludahai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Taichung, Taiwan - 2017 East Asian Games Candidate City
    Last Seen
    07-03-13 @ 02:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    10,320

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Bodhisattva View Post
    No and no? It isn't an evolving document except for the evolutions... I love it. LOL!
    Meaning it was meant to evolve through the Constitutional process of amendment rather than by judicial fiat...
    Semper Paratus
    Boston = City of Champions: Bruins 2011; Celtics 2008; Red Sox 2004, 2007; Patriots 2002, 2004, 2005
    Jon Huntsman for President

  8. #168
    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 drz-400 View Post
    I believe you two are wrong for focusing on the 9th and 10th amendments. For example, the "right to privacy" was found to be a form of substantive due process. It is part of the 14th amendment. This is also true when applying any form of the bill of rights to states.
    But the 14th Amendment doesn't specifically list a "right to privacy." However, the right to privacy can be extrapolated from the 14th because of the 9th.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  9. #169
    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 apdst View Post
    The problem could be a significant over abundance of nutjob, fring judges, legislating from the bench.
    Or the problem could be centrist judges making moderate decisions get accused of legislating from the bench from a significant abundance of nutjob fringe hardliners.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  10. #170
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,595

    Re: Chief justice urges progress naming judges

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    What exactly are the checks and balances on SCOTUS? The only real one that there is is impeachment. And I see no reason that cannot be kept with in the Senates control. You do know that I am just talking strictly about appointments right?

    The problem that this thread has identified is that it takes the Senate so freaking long to appoint judges due to partisanship. The D's try to stop or stall the R's choices and the R's do the same to the D's. They do this to try and get a judge that is sympathetic to their cause on the bench so that there is a less likely chance that if a law they pass gets brought before the Court that it will get struck down. I would argue that by doing this they are subverting the very purpose that SCOTUS was made for. And that is to keep the Legislative and Executive branches from screwing over the people. My solution would solve that and still keep the essential check and balance in place.

    btw, what did you think of the other suggestion that I had?
    The checks and balances in this case, is the selection process. It keeps dickweeds from getting posted to the Supreme Court and doing too much damage, before that person can be impeached.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 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
  •