• 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!

Heart stent for Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, 81

chromium said:
Then you should've wished that 6th circuit didn't create a situation where SCOTUS has no choice but to intervene, but something tells me you were thrilled with the decision.

How is that desperation going for you? Even mississippi has SSM now!
Click to expand...

I realize the fact all this concerns homosexuality makes it important to you. But homosexuals and their preoccupations don't interest me. All I am concerned with is having the Supreme Court make reasonable interpretations of the Constitution, because when it does not, it undermines that Constitution and the rule of law. The Court has made a very bad habit of that during the past seventy-five years or so. I'm not particularly concerned with abortion, either, by itself. What concerns me is that in Roe, the Court wrote a God-awful, arbitrary decision to cover what it had already decided to do, without legitimate authority. Arbitrary government is lawless government, which is also known as tyranny--and it is always a threat to a free country.
 
matchlight said:
I realize the fact all this concerns homosexuality makes it important to you. But homosexuals and their preoccupations don't interest me. All I am concerned with is having the Supreme Court make reasonable interpretations of the Constitution, because when it does not, it undermines that Constitution and the rule of law. The Court has made a very bad habit of that during the past seventy-five years or so. I'm not particularly concerned with abortion, either, by itself. What concerns me is that in Roe, the Court wrote a God-awful, arbitrary decision to cover what it had already decided to do, without legitimate authority. Arbitrary government is lawless government, which is also known as tyranny--and it is always a threat to a free country.
Click to expand...

like how SCOTUS not stricken down the Air Force?
 
Navy Pride said:
I apologize if someone already has started a thread on this......I wish Ginsburg no harm but it would be a huge boost for the GOP if she had to step down...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/27/us/justice-ginsburg-undergoes-heart-procedure.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


Are you crazy? The GOP is praying that she hangs in there in the desperate hope that they can win in 2016 (which isn't going to happen). the WORST thing for the GOP right now would be if she were to leave and Obama gets a third appointment.
 
matchlight said:
I realize the fact all this concerns homosexuality makes it important to you. But homosexuals and their preoccupations don't interest me. All I am concerned with is having the Supreme Court make reasonable interpretations of the Constitution, because when it does not, it undermines that Constitution and the rule of law. The Court has made a very bad habit of that during the past seventy-five years or so. I'm not particularly concerned with abortion, either, by itself. What concerns me is that in Roe, the Court wrote a God-awful, arbitrary decision to cover what it had already decided to do, without legitimate authority. Arbitrary government is lawless government, which is also known as tyranny--and it is always a threat to a free country.
Click to expand...

There even people on the left who say Roe V Wade was written terribly.
 
SMTA said:
Typical hateful partisan hack behavior.
Click to expand...

I will never deny I am a partisan, will you? I notice you put other in the way you lean when your posts give you away as a left wing partisan hack.
 
digsbe said:
If she retires or dies with Obama as president she'll just be replaced by a liberal judge.

It's a shame how political and biased the SCOTUS is. When the highest court of the land goes by politics and ideology over the word of law that is a major problem.

Regardless though, I wish her a speedy recovery.
Click to expand...
The SC is more a political body than it is a judicial one. You can predict how the court will decide almost every issue. The only wild card is Kennedy. What is and is not Constitutional often boils down to what this one unelected individual decides. And that isn't a good thing for a single man to hold that much power.
 
Navy Pride said:
I will never deny I am a partisan, will you? I notice you put other in the way you lean when your posts give you away as a left wing partisan hack.
Click to expand...

Not a left wing person at all.

I just detest people like you who hate others based solely on their political views,

Is just shows your ignorance, lack of tolerance, and is quite pathetic.

You live in a very small world.
 
Fletch said:
The SC is more a political body than it is a judicial one. You can predict how the court will decide almost every issue. The only wild card is Kennedy. What is and is not Constitutional often boils down to what this one unelected individual decides. And that isn't a good thing for a single man to hold that much power.
Click to expand...

His vote doesn't count more or less than any other Justice's vote. The Supreme Court is both a political and a judicial body. It was designed that way to be a check on the others. Mrs. Obama will be the one who decides who does replace RBG if and when the time comes.
 
Navy Pride said:
There even people on the left who say Roe V Wade was written terribly.
Click to expand...

of course it was. John Hart Ely pretty well set that out. it should have been state issue-and I support abortion rights
 
Declan said:
His vote doesn't count more or less than any other Justice's vote. The Supreme Court is both a political and a judicial body. It was designed that way to be a check on the others. Mrs. Obama will be the one who decides who does replace RBG if and when the time comes.
Click to expand...

Mrs. Obama? very interesting comment
 
TurtleDude said:
Mrs. Obama? very interesting comment
Click to expand...

It is no big secret that Mrs. Obama holds a lot of sway on certain issues. She was, after all, the real lawyer who gave up a real successful career in law to be relegated to a public position of telling kids to eat their vegetables. The President keeps/gives her her relevance behind the scenes.
 
Declan said:
It is no big secret that Mrs. Obama holds a lot of sway on certain issues. She was, after all, the real lawyer who gave up a real successful career in law to be relegated to a public position of telling kids to eat their vegetables. The President keeps/gives her her relevance behind the scenes.
Click to expand...

she wasn't all that successful. She was an Affirmative Action hire at Sidley and Austin where she didn't last and she got big raise at another office after her husband was elected senator. She only went to Princeton and Harvard due to her race
 
Fletch said:
The SC is more a political body than it is a judicial one. You can predict how the court will decide almost every issue. The only wild card is Kennedy. What is and is not Constitutional often boils down to what this one unelected individual decides. And that isn't a good thing for a single man to hold that much power.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence to support that? Or is it just your personal opinion, for whatever it's worth?
 
TurtleDude said:
she wasn't all that successful. She was an Affirmative Action hire at Sidley and Austin where she didn't last and she got big raise at another office after her husband was elected senator. She only went to Princeton and Harvard due to her race
Click to expand...


What gives Lady Broadbeam away as a third-rater is her senior thesis at Princeton, some of which I've read on the Internet. It is a lot of cliche, I'm-a-victim PC tripe about the trials of having been black at Princeton, and how she had succeeded in spite of it. It's such garbage that any smart high school senior would be embarrassed to have their name on it.
 
SlevinKelevra said:
not that I don't like, but I don't understand how strict constructionists can ever support it.
Click to expand...

Why not? Congress has the power "to raise and support armies." I don't see what requires those all to be land armies--in fact I believe France has called its air force the "Armee de l'Air." That would make no more sense than to say Congress' power "to provide and maintain a navy" allows for aircraft carriers, because they are ships, but not for the aircraft to go on them. In any case, there already was an Army Air Force. The purpose of the federal law that established the Air Force as a separate branch of the military after WWII was to recognize the growing importance of a force that already had existed for decades, by placing it under its own administration.

One of the most important reasons for drafting the Constitution, which created the United States, was to improve Americans' ability to defend themselves from foreign threats. It had only been several years since the American forces had very narrowly escaped being defeated--once and for all--by the British. No reasonable person can believe that the Framers of the Constitution did not mean to give Congress the power to create whatever military forces our national security might require, even if they could not know exactly what weapons those forces might some day use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom