Is Merrick Garland now screwed for EVER being a Supreme Court Justice?

Kobie said:

I know exactly what your argument is -- "replace justices who agree with me with other justices who agree with me."

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

You clearly haven't followed the argument. I never claimed that Scalia was anything other than a strict constructionist and originalist. As such, his opinions aren't liberal or conservative, they are strictly constitutional, irrespective of the politics behind the case. I did claim that the liberal, or liberal appointed justices, all come from an activist background where they believe their role is to push forward a social agenda irrespective of the constitutionality of that agenda.

So what's your point, in relation to my argument?

I stated, from my first post, that I believe Scalia should be replaced by someone else who believes in being a strict originalist as Scalia was, someone who will try to be faithful to the intent of the constitution and not fabricate rights that don't exist simply to further a social agenda that should be left to legislatures, not unaccountable courts.

The only reason I brought up the liberal justices on the court was to point out that appointing Garland would simply load the court with 5 social activists and destroy what balance there may be on the court at this time.

Click to expand...

Kobie said:

You mean like honorable jurist Thurgood Marshall was replaced by Scalia buttboy Clarence Thomas?

Click to expand...

RetiredUSN said:

A person who made it all the way to the Supreme Court?

A butt boy?

Regardless of political leanings, these are all well respected justices who got there with proven track records.

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

You clearly haven't followed the argument. I never claimed that Scalia was anything other than a strict constructionist and originalist. As such, his opinions aren't liberal or conservative, they are strictly constitutional, irrespective of the politics behind the case. I did claim that the liberal, or liberal appointed justices, all come from an activist background where they believe their role is to push forward a social agenda irrespective of the constitutionality of that agenda.

So what's your point, in relation to my argument?

I stated, from my first post, that I believe Scalia should be replaced by someone else who believes in being a strict originalist as Scalia was, someone who will try to be faithful to the intent of the constitution and not fabricate rights that don't exist simply to further a social agenda that should be left to legislatures, not unaccountable courts.

The only reason I brought up the liberal justices on the court was to point out that appointing Garland would simply load the court with 5 social activists and destroy what balance there may be on the court at this time.

Click to expand...

It's pretty simple and clear Frank, which is why you avoid answering the question each time. Name a Democrat President's Supreme Court nominee who has been as unfaithful to their President's political ideology as both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy. You can't, because none exist. Chief Justice Roberts, as an example, in the ACA case, bent over backwards to claim the mandate was a tax, when the President and all his representation said it wasn't. That was the only way that he could manage to bastardize his opinion to meet that of the liberal justices and the President.

Click to expand...

Kobie said:

I know exactly what your argument is -- "replace justices who agree with me with other justices who agree with me."

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

As usual, you're fairly clueless when it comes to interpretation of other's arguments.

My argument is that Scalia was a very unique justice on the court in that he didn't pander to politics and agendas, but stuck to a reading and interpretation of the constitution in his opinions. I wouldn't want to see that lost on the court and replaced by another social activist. I have no idea what you're looking for in a justice, but from the sounds of the "quote" you'd like to attribute to my view, I'm guessing it's pretty clear.

Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:

Give it a break, John.

Do you honestly think you can get away with that crap...when your words are right here in black and white?

Here is what you wrote:





http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...-supreme-court-justice-13.html#post1065710839

Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:

And again you have no point. There's nothing I've posted that's inconsistent. You, on the other hand, have posted nothing other than attacks on my posts that either fail to understand the words posted or purposely misrepresent them.

Since this is a new day, I have no interest in your childish need to rehash yesterday's spitting match. Go find someone else who might be interested.

Have a good day.

Click to expand...

• 2 Republican Senators Revoke Support for Garland Hearings