• 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!

Arkansas to ban abortion at 12 weeks, earliest in nation [W:1036:1154]

Well I thought it was your opinion that SCOTUS made a law.
It is my opinion they interpreted the Constitution.

In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
 
Do Tea Partiers get mad when they see elected representatives spending their time and tax-payer funded salaries and administration costs to pass a law that will never hold up in court?

Or when the U.S. House votes to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) more that 30 times. Think of all that waste, the hours wasted, the support staff time wasted, when they could have been doing something productive and not just for future political ads. Does this get the Tea Party conservatives upset when they think of all tax-payer $$ gone to waste?
 
Do Tea Partiers get mad when they see elected representatives spending their time and tax-payer funded salaries and administration costs to pass a law that will never hold up in court?

Or when the U.S. House votes to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) more that 30 times. Think of all that waste, the hours wasted, the support staff time wasted, when they could have been doing something productive and not just for future political ads. Does this get the Tea Party conservatives upset when they think of all tax-payer $$ gone to waste?


I don't know, but I can tell you that progressive sure do get mad when they aren't allowed to just run roughshod over the rest of us....;)
 
Do Tea Partiers get mad when they see elected representatives spending their time and tax-payer funded salaries and administration costs to pass a law that will never hold up in court?

Or when the U.S. House votes to repeal the ACA (Obamacare) more that 30 times. Think of all that waste, the hours wasted, the support staff time wasted, when they could have been doing something productive and not just for future political ads. Does this get the Tea Party conservatives upset when they think of all tax-payer $$ gone to waste?

That sure came out of left field.

So you are omniscient, and know how every vote and judgment will turnout before it happens? If you believe something is right, shouldn't you stand for it, regardless of the odds of winning?
 
That sure came out of left field.

So you are omniscient, and know how every vote and judgment will turnout before it happens? If you believe something is right, shouldn't you stand for it, regardless of the odds of winning?

All I hear from the Tea Party is how much the Dems waste tax dollars on programs and spend, spend, spend. It costs money to run a state house or federal legislature. No one on the right has complained about the cost for 30 votes to repeal the ACA. A law upheld by SCOTUS. A law the republican speaker calls "the law of the land".

This source calculates the cost of the house of representatives at 1.9 million a day in salaries and 1.7 million in allocations per day per member.

A hollywood film crew can be calculated out to thousands per minute, millions per day, but at least they deliver (most times) an entertainment product for distribution and profit. What did we get for all the money spent on the 33 votes to repeal the ACA?
 
Does SCOTUS Make Laws?

That is I guess a matter of opinion.

It depends on whether a person agrees with their decision as to whether the Supreme Court is making law or enforcing the Constitution or Bill of Rights. If a person agrees, they are enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If not, they are treasonous renegades who hate the Constitution and are ego-manaics.
 
All I hear from the Tea Party is how much the Dems waste tax dollars on programs and spend, spend, spend. It costs money to run a state house or federal legislature. No one on the right has complained about the cost for 30 votes to repeal the ACA. A law upheld by SCOTUS. A law the republican speaker calls "the law of the land".

This source calculates the cost of the house of representatives at 1.9 million a day in salaries and 1.7 million in allocations per day per member.

A hollywood film crew can be calculated out to thousands per minute, millions per day, but at least they deliver (most times) an entertainment product for distribution and profit. What did we get for all the money spent on the 33 votes to repeal the ACA?

According to your own source the salaries come to $207,044 a day... Just a tad less than 1.9 million

Further, this is just the cost of the House salaries and allocations divided by 366 days, it would be the same regardless of what they vote on.
 
According to your own source the salaries come to $207,044 a day... Just a tad less than 1.9 million

You are correct, that's 1.9 Millon per vote.

Thank you for pointing that out.

So, multiply 1.9Million x 33 votes to repeal the ACA and you get.... 62,700,000 Million wasted on votes to repeal the ACA. Showboating and political theater paid for by the American tax payer.

Where's the outrage? Where's the Tea Party rally to toss the wasteful bums out??!!
 
You are correct, that's 1.9 Millon per vote.

Thank you for pointing that out.

So, multiply 1.9Million x 33 votes to repeal the ACA and you get.... 62,700,000 Million wasted on votes to repeal the ACA. Showboating and political theater paid for by the American tax payer.

Where's the outrage? Where's the Tea Party rally to toss the wasteful bums out??!!

You seem to be confused.

That's just what the cost of the House is divided by the days in a year. They do more than take a single vote in a day.

And do you even have the slightest idea of what an allocation is? Because I don't see how you are coming up with any of this. Maybe you could post your math that shows how your numbers directly tie into a single vote?
 
It depends on whether a person agrees with their decision as to whether the Supreme Court is making law or enforcing the Constitution or Bill of Rights. If a person agrees, they are enforcing the Constitution and Bill of Rights. If not, they are treasonous renegades who hate the Constitution and are ego-manaics.

No, In article 3 the constitution was clear in establishing the court. It held that the Constitution was the highest law of the land, and began in my view overstepping their bounds with the interpretation of a "Living Constitution"... Here are a number of cases that have been decided as "law of the land" through judicial fiat.



DECISION DATE COURT TYPES OF ACTIVISM
Atkins v. Virginia 06/20/2002 Second Circuit Importing Foreign Law, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce 03/27/1990 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Baker v. Carr 03/26/1962 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
BMW v. Gore 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington 05/28/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism
Cooper v. Aaron 09/12/1958 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism
Dabit v. Merrill Lynch 01/11/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Doe v. Bolton 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing Tp. 02/10/1947 Supreme Court Contorting Text
Fierro v. Gomez 02/21/1996 Ninth Circuit Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Flast v. Cohen 06/10/1968 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority 02/19/1985 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Gonzales v. Raich 06/06/2005 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Griswold v. Connecticut 06/07/1965 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld 06/29/2006 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff 05/30/1984 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Hayden v. Pataki 04/04/2006 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Hill v. Colorado 06/28/2000 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Home Building & Loan Association v. Blaisdell 01/08/1934 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Hudson v. McMillian 02/25/1992 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Humphrey's Executor v. United States 05/27/1935 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Hunter ex rel. Brandt v. The Regents of the University of California 09/09/1999 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Playing Legislator
Katzenbach v. McClung 10/05/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. 06/23/2005 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Kennedy v. Louisiana 06/25/2008 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Lawrence v. Texas 06/26/2003 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism, Playing Favorites
Lemon v. Kurtzman 06/28/1971 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp. 10/06/2000 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent
Maloney v. Cuomo 01/28/2009 Second Circuit Abusing Precedent, Nullifying Rights
Mapp v. Ohio 06/19/1961 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Playing Legislator
Missouri v. Jenkins 04/18/1990 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Morrison v. Olson 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text
Planned Parenthood v. Casey 06/29/1992 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Living Constitutionalism
Rasul v. Bush 06/28/2004 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Judicial Imperialism, Playing Legislator
Reynolds v. Sims 06/15/1964 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent, Living Constitutionalism
Ricci v. DeStefano 06/13/2008 Second Circuit Contorting Text, Judicial Dishonesty
Roe v. Wade 01/22/1973 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Romer v. Evans 05/20/1996 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Roper v. Simmons 03/01/2005 Supreme Court Importing Foreign Law, Living Constitutionalism, Playing Legislator
Saenz v. Roe 05/17/1999 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Silveira v. Lockyer 12/05/2002 Ninth Circuit Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
The Slaughterhouse Cases 04/14/1873 Supreme Court Contorting Text, Nullifying Rights
Southwest Voter Registration Education Project v. Shelley 09/15/2003 Ninth Circuit Abusing Precedent, Contorting Text, Judicial Imperialism
Tashjian v. Republican Party of Connecticut 12/10/1986 Supreme Court Abusing Precedent
Thompson v. Oklahoma 06/29/1988 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
Trop v. Dulles 03/31/1958 Supreme Court Living Constitutionalism
United States v. Bad Marriage 12/30/2004 Ninth Circuit Playing Favorites
United States v. SCRAP 06/18/1973 Supreme Court Judicial Imperialism
United States v. Virginia 06/26/1996 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
United Steelworkers v. Weber 06/27/1979 Supreme Court Contorting Text
Weeks v. United States 02/24/1914 Supreme Court Playing Legislator
Wickard v. Filburn 11/09/1942 Supreme Court Contorting Text

Judicial Activism

Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning.
 
Back
Top Bottom