• 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!

Outraged by Kansas Justices’ Rulings, Republicans Seek to Reshape Court

Fishking said:
Yes, it's just "teh right". I mean, it's not like the left doesn't struggle with the concept of "shall not be infringed".
Click to expand...
Fair enough, in your example.

I personally see the WoD & NSA as far greater concerns than expanding 2A rights, but I can and do respect your opinion in this. I'm a strong supporter of the Castle Doctrine myself, less sanguine about - but accepting - of CCW, and steadfastly against Stand Your Ground.

Regardless, the underlying concept I presented remains true: The Court keeps the legislatures from acting unconstitutionally. And rightfully so.
 
Chomsky said:
Fair enough, in your example.

I personally see the WoD & NSA as far greater concerns than expanding 2A rights, but I can and do respect your opinion in this. I'm a strong supporter of the Castle Doctrine myself, less sanguine about - but accepting - of CCW, and steadfastly against Stand Your Ground.

Regardless, the underlying concept I presented remains true: The Court keeps the legislatures from acting unconstitutionally. And rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I guess you don't quite understand my point. I agree that that is their job but I simply do not agree that they are conducting it properly. I can actually prove it via multiple ways.

1. Scalia was criticized for being what is called an "originalist". But that shouldn't even be a term that exists because the literal job description of a judge should always be an originalist. The only way that changes is if you do an actual amendment. Just because amendments are hard doesn't mean judges should get to bypass the original meanings.

2. If the courts weren't compromised, we'd never see various parties/factions struggling to have it be their guy that they appoint. Democrats wouldn't fight Republican appointments and Republicans wouldn't fight Democrat appointments. What does that tell you? It tells you that it's all about the ideology of the judges, not their ability to stick with the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution. Honestly, I don't even think the Constitution is that difficult to understand yet we have so big of a divide on it.
 
Absentglare said:
What ?!?

They cannot make law, they can only strike down laws. Do you not understand how that is distinct independent of their reasoning ?
Click to expand...

You don't understand the push and pull/yin yang aspect of court decisions, do you? In many cases, you cannot strike down a law without making an equal but opposite law/right in it's place. Go read up on where common laws come from before weighing in again.
 
Fishking said:
You don't understand the push and pull/yin yang aspect of court decisions, do you? In many cases, you cannot strike down a law without making an equal but opposite law/right in it's place. Go read up on where common laws come from before weighing in again.
Click to expand...

You seem to think that judicial decisions are actually legislative ones if you disagree with the judgement. I'm fairly confident that i'm not the one who needs to do any research here.
 
Absentglare said:
You seem to think that judicial decisions are actually legislative ones if you disagree with the judgement. I'm fairly confident that i'm not the one who needs to do any research here.
Click to expand...

*cough*commonlaw*cough*lookitup*cough*cough*
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Read more @: Outraged by Kansas Justices’ Rulings, Republicans Seek to Reshape Court

State Supreme Court doesnt rule in your way, what do you do? Make it easier to impeach the justices and try to make them up for election. Political bullying and the erosion of separation of powers. [/FONT][/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Trying to stack the deck in courts is nothing new and is done across party lines. Nothing more than political hackery that leaves me disgusted even thinking about it.
 
JANFU said:
FDR did try it with SCOTUS. Did not work out well.
Click to expand...

it worked out very well for FDR and those whom liked the policies he was pushing....

it didn't' work very well for those whom have even the slightest bit of respect for the Constitution, though.
 
Thanks for the organized reply.

Fishking said:
Yes, but I guess you don't quite understand my point. I agree that that is their job but I simply do not agree that they are conducting it properly. I can actually prove it via multiple ways.

1. Scalia was criticized for being what is called an "originalist". But that shouldn't even be a term that exists because the literal job description of a judge should always be an originalist. The only way that changes is if you do an actual amendment. Just because amendments are hard doesn't mean judges should get to bypass the original meanings.
Click to expand...
Well, originalist is an obtuse term that has been politicized.

The exact meaning of words and language in the Constitution gets continuously interpreted over time. Same for the Bible. Look how hard it's been to determine today's meaning of "arms" and "infringed" in the 2A.

Another example is "papers". There were no cell phones envisioned by our forefathers, so they could not see their protecting us from the government extending to our current cell phones, nor could they write it specifically like they did "papers, but the Court was able to interpret the Constitution to that effect. Otherwise, if the Court followed the exact words in the Constitution literately in today's terms, the feds would be sniffing around in all our phones without due process!

So, we need to be "originalist" in terms of the the original intent and meaning, but cannot be slave to the exact literally translation in today's context, because today's meaning may not have been the original meaning in terms of their understanding in 1787. To do so would err in the fidelity of the original document and it's intent.

2. If the courts weren't compromised, we'd never see various parties/factions struggling to have it be their guy that they appoint. Democrats wouldn't fight Republican appointments and Republicans wouldn't fight Democrat appointments. What does that tell you? It tells you that it's all about the ideology of the judges, not their ability to stick with the intent of the founders when they wrote the Constitution. Honestly, I don't even think the Constitution is that difficult to understand yet we have so big of a divide on it.
Click to expand...
You are right in that the parties try to put a Judge of their ideology on the Court, it's not a perfect system, but how else can we do it Constitutionally? We are following the founders' Constitutional blueprint. The buck has to stop somewhere.

As to understanding the Constitution, I think you might be underestimating it's legal and interpretive complexities. What you believe you see and how it should be applied to modern society, may be very different than what I may see (or anyone else, for the matter).

And truth be told, all the law means in application is what a given judge thinks it means. The Constitution cannot act on it's own, nor can it touch us on it's own. It takes a court somewhere.
 
JANFU said:
Look at Poland, ignoring and rewriting Laws, ref their Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Yea they been taken over by right wing fascists too.. just saying.
 
PeteEU said:
Yea they been taken over by right wing fascists too.. just saying.
Click to expand...

Yes they have. Europe is in some countries reverting to its past. But all countries have substantial support for these Fascists.
 
PeteEU said:
Sounds like what happened in Hungary not long ago.... typical right wing fascist behaviour.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is not really correct. It is more a statist, socialist or autocratic type of activity and has little to with today's conservatives, who will usually tend more to favor individual based systems of government.
 
Fishking said:
The problem is that the why judges have things setup, they literally can't do anything unconstitutional. They can make up whatever reasoning they want, and they do, to justify how it's following the Constitution. I mean, California even did a constitutional amendment for marriage and that was struck down the the California supreme court. I don't support gay ban legislation but that shouldn't even be able to happen like that.
Click to expand...

First Judges don't set things up. Legislators do... judges don't sneak in late at night to sit on the court- they don't appoint each other to the court.

Second it was a ruling by the FEDERAL courts that struck down the STATE constitutional amendment- please state the facts properly.

So it didn't happen like that.... :peace
 
joG said:
Change is legitimate, if it is done according to the law. Don't you think?
Click to expand...

And if the Supreme Court upholds that the law passed are unconstitutional, isnt that a part of the law?
 
notquiteright said:
First Judges don't set things up. Legislators do... judges don't sneak in late at night to sit on the court- they don't appoint each other to the court.

Second it was a ruling by the FEDERAL courts that struck down the STATE constitutional amendment- please state the facts properly.

So it didn't happen like that.... :peace
Click to expand...

You're right about the federal court. However, a judges decision still cannot be unconstitutional, no matter what their reasoning. That part of the statement stands. I agree with the ruling overturning prop 8 and also the ruling on DOMA. However, because I agree with those particular rulings it doesn't negate that there exists no integrity among the courts to stay to the original intent of the Constitution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom