• 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

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.

yeah, she clearly got into those two schools only because she was a black female.
 
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 see, I do agree with your point, which is that extra-constitutional powers and functions are a slippery slope, and-- here's where me might or might not differ-- lay the justifiable framework for many things that were then unanticipated, but now exist and seem to flow from the language, spirit, and temporal context of the time(s). Or in another wording- if we can break strict constructionism in one area, can we not in any or all other areas?
 
You see, I do agree with your point, which is that extra-constitutional powers and functions are a slippery slope, and-- here's where me might or might not differ-- lay the justifiable framework for many things that were then unanticipated, but now exist and seem to flow from the language, spirit, and temporal context of the time(s). Or in another wording- if we can break strict constructionism in one area, can we not in any or all other areas?

I didn't make any point about extra-constitutional powers or a slippery slope. I just explained why I think the claim that a person has to make an unreasonable interpretation of the Constitution to justify Congress' authority to create the U.S. Air Force doesn't hold water. I've seen all sorts of attempts to twist this or that part of the Constitution into something unrecognizable to justify some statist vision of a social utopia. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself has sometimes done that. Roe is only one example.
 
I didn't make any point about extra-constitutional powers or a slippery slope. I just explained why I think the claim that a person has to make an unreasonable interpretation of the Constitution to justify Congress' authority to create the U.S. Air Force doesn't hold water. I've seen all sorts of attempts to twist this or that part of the Constitution into something unrecognizable to justify some statist vision of a social utopia. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court itself has sometimes done that. Roe is only one example.

interpreting the constitution is inherenly not strict construction and by definition anything expanded therefrom is extraconstitutional power.
 
I don't agree with her view of the law and distorting the Constitution, but I wish her the best of health.
 
"Oh goody, someone I politically disagree with is sick."

Well if she is sick, she ain't the only one.

The problem is that people like her are in a position of authority. She twists things to give government greater authority and in the process robs the people of authority over their lives. Some of us hold contempt for dishonest people that exist solely to create greater and greater government authority.
 
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.

When in doubt attack the messenger..........Typical left wing ploy.......I hate no one my left wing friend........I just think lefties like you could destroy our wonderful country..A country that I served 21 years in the military so you can spout your hatred........I am done with you now unless you want to discuss the subject of the thread and stop attacking me.
 
How exactly would Obama getting to appoint another Supreme Court justice be "a huge boost for the GOP"?

You do know that the GOP will control the Senate right.........Obama is a lame duck he will appoint no one....
 
The GOP Senate???? I don't think Your buddy would nominate any candidate they provide.

it all depends on who the senators have in mind for nomination.

i am sure that there are senators out there who would want to personally nominate someone they know.
 
You do know that the GOP will control the Senate right.........Obama is a lame duck he will appoint no one....

Sorry, but the GOP doesn't exactly have a history of blocking liberal justices. You know that, right? You honestly believe if Ginsburg bowed out tomorrow, there would be no justice appointed until the next president is elected? While I wish that were the case too, but you are wishful thinking.
 
it all depends on who the senators have in mind for nomination.

i am sure that there are senators out there who would want to personally nominate someone they know.

Considerring what Reid and the dems did when they were in control I would never bet on that happening...Conservatives need only one more vote to control the SCOTUS. I am sure there would never let Obama nominate a Liberal.
 
Sorry, but the GOP doesn't exactly have a history of blocking liberal justices. You know that, right? You honestly believe if Ginsburg bowed out tomorrow, there would be no justice appointed until the next president is elected? While I wish that were the case too, but you are wishful thinking.

Do you understand the selection process? The president nominates who he wants and the Senate approves the nomination...A Conservative senate will never approve a liberal candidate submitted by Obama.
 
Considerring what Reid and the dems did when they were in control I would never bet on that happening...Conservatives need only one more vote to control the SCOTUS. I am sure there would never let Obama nominate a Liberal.

Conservatives have controlled the USSC long before the Bush v. Gore decision.
You must have missed Citizens United 1.0 and 2.0, just as recent examples .
 
Do you understand the selection process?
The president nominates who he wants and the Senate approves the nomination...
A Conservative senate will never approve a liberal candidate submitted by Obama.

Then it will be a 5-3 GOP court going into the Presidential election.
Americans don't cotton to this kind of stalemate in Presidential years, when DEMs/Libs/Progs wake up and vote more .
 
Conservatives have controlled the USSC long before the Bush v. Gore decision.
You must have missed Citizens United 1.0 and 2.0, just as recent examples .

I am not going to go ancient history with you.....In recent history AD Kennedy and S. D. Oconner have been the swing vote with there vote hardly a sure thing for the Right. A good solid Conservative will solve that problem and the no more Roe V Wade my left wing friend.
 
Then it will be a 5-3 GOP court going into the Presidential election.
Americans don't cotton to this kind of stalemate in Presidential years, when DEMs/Libs/Progs wake up and vote more .

ROLFLMAO :rofl
 
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.

Roe v Wade could be seen as creation of new laws, but SSM is simply applying due process and equal protection to a group that was in need of this. There's nothing arbitrary and certainly not tyrannical or lawless (talk about creating your OWN interpretation of ad hoc law) about it.
 
You do know that the GOP will control the Senate right.........Obama is a lame duck he will appoint no one....

wtf does the senate have to do with replacing ginsburg? He *must* appoint a new justice and will do so just as surely as every other president. This belongs in CT
 
When did Obama become a liberal? I thought you right wingers all said he was Bush II. ??? :confused:

Can't be Bush Lite, that would be copyright infringement on Bush Beer. :lol:
 
wtf does the senate have to do with replacing ginsburg? He *must* appoint a new justice and will do so just as surely as every other president. This belongs in CT

Quite a bit, unless Obama can use a EO to appoint a justice. :lamo
The Court consists of the Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
You do know that the GOP will control the Senate right.........Obama is a lame duck he will appoint no one....

Needs correction, not by appointment, but by nomination, then confirmation by the senate, but you're on the right track, just a pesky detail you were not aware of, yes?
 
Back
Top Bottom