• 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!

Obama 9th Circuit Nominee: Constitution Must Adapt to Changes in the World

I don't know why you are going on this whole tirade. It is what it is. If you aren't happy with how America has dealt with its Constitution since 1803 then move to a different country.

Right, the usual lefty cop out: "The Constitution you swore to protect doesn't mean damn thing, since we can promote socialism and totalitarianism by pretending it allows what it doesn't allow, you can move to another country if you don't like it."

If you lack the balls to admit that your interpretation of the Constitution means the Constitution has no meaning whatsoever, why aren't YOU moving to a country that doesn't have a constitution to protect YOUR freedoms?

I know what it is I swore to uphold when I enlisted in the Navy, and that wasn't a document written with disappearing ink on a Picasso painting.
 
that anyone would submit that the difference between the SCHOOL of activism and the SCHOOL of construction is a mere matter of advertence or inadvertence is absurd
 
Right, the usual lefty cop out: "The Constitution you swore to protect doesn't mean damn thing, since we can promote socialism and totalitarianism by pretending it allows what it doesn't allow, you can move to another country if you don't like it."

If you lack the balls to admit that your interpretation of the Constitution means the Constitution has no meaning whatsoever, why aren't YOU moving to a country that doesn't have a constitution to protect YOUR freedoms?

I know what it is I swore to uphold when I enlisted in the Navy, and that wasn't a document written with disappearing ink on a Picasso painting.

Okay, I'll give you all your options. If you don't like how your government has been run since 1803, then pass a federal Constitutional amendment that does away with the power of judicial review and thus any judgments which make the Constitution into a living document. Your other option is to move somewhere less barbaric. You are the one advocating on behalf of a government that only uses the amendment process to change the way the government runs, so why not practice what you preach instead of bitching like some sort of helpless infant?
 
Last edited:
or, more practically, simply support the appointment of constructionist judges and oppose judicial activists

as well as those rather radical pols who would pick em
 
or, more practically, simply support the appointment of constructionist judges and oppose judicial activists

as well as those rather radical pols who would pick em

Yeah, because its the objective, average citizen who appoints those judges...

No wait! It's partisan Presidents who do that!
 
Yes, and as everyone knows, there's no possible way that anything other than the Constitution could deal with the issue of kiddie porn.

Missing the point -- kiddie porn is not specifically mentioned in the 1st amendment, but we know it's outside the bounds of free speech...

If only there were some sort of legislative body that could draft laws to deal with things like this, thus freeing the judicial system from its need to reinterpret the Constitution to deal with whatever bull**** issue that people think is important today...

Those clever Founding Fathers are wa-aaaay ahead of you, RightNYC -- it's called Congress. And when they overstep, that's where the supreme court comes in...

Did you skip of few weeks of high school civics?:confused::confused:
 
Yeah, because its the objective, average citizen who appoints those judges...

No wait! It's partisan Presidents who do that!

exactly, which is why we should all support partisan presidents who appoint constructionists while opposing partisan presidents who would try to see the constitution as evolving and changing with circumstances, ala judicial activists

and there's a BIG difference

a BIG difference between partisan presidents who pick constructionists and partisan presidents who appoint men and women who use the concept of a "living" charter as license to do just about anything they want

and that BIG difference in partisan presidents derives from that defining distinction between construction and activism, pretty much diametrically opposing SCHOOLS of law

a matter of inadvertence---LOL!
 
The Ninth Circuit Court of shlameals is the most overturned Court in America hands down.

They have a history of getting it wrong and adding another radical is not going to help.

An amendment to the Constitution should make it illegal to attempt to change any decision made by the Supreme Court on any subject.

The Values our Nation were founded on should not be subject to change because some wacko liberals has some whim.

We have sen in the last 50 years so many attacks on our values, making acts so perverse they flu in the face any value system it's not funny.

Liberals are trying to destroy or Nation and they use threats, intimidation and claims of intolerance to force their unnatural ways of life and thinking on the rest of us.

Enough is enough.
Oh no not the ninth Circus?? :mrgreen:
 
exactly, which is why we should all support partisan presidents who appoint constructionists while opposing partisan presidents who would try to see the constitution as evolving and changing with circumstances, ala judicial activists

and there's a BIG difference

a BIG difference between partisan presidents who pick constructionists and partisan presidents who appoint men and women who use the concept of a "living" charter as license to do just about anything they want

and that BIG difference in partisan presidents derives from that defining distinction between construction and activism, pretty much diametrically opposing SCHOOLS of law

a matter of inadvertence---LOL!

Meh, I'm just saying, whether a conservative president or a liberal president, either is likely to appoint "activist" judges. There are just as many social conservative activists out there as there are progressive liberal activists. And when going to the polls, the last thing usually on people's minds is "Boy, I wonder if this guy will appoint activist judges?"
 
Last edited:
Missing the point -- kiddie porn is not specifically mentioned in the 1st amendment, but we know it's outside the bounds of free speech...

Which means...? I'm not sure what you think you're proving.


Those clever Founding Fathers are wa-aaaay ahead of you, RightNYC -- it's called Congress. And when they overstep, that's where the supreme court comes in...

Did you skip of few weeks of high school civics?:confused::confused:

Might want to check your sarcasm detector.
 
There are just as many social conservative activists out there as there are progressive liberal activists.

sure, that's why all the conservatives on this thread are so opposed to the idea of the "evolving" charter

while all the "progressives" here have been claiming for 100 posts that there is no distinction

except "inadvertence"

And when going to the polls, the last thing usually on people's minds is "Boy, I wonder if this guy will appoint activist judges?"

hardly, what kind of judges a president is likely to appoint is always a huge political concern

it's why a candidate's views on abortion matter so much to so many, for example
 
All right....have at it Groucho.....Let's see your counter to Justice Sclia


j-mac

He's an absolute hypocrite and doesn't mean a damn thing he said, or else is so clueless that he doesn't realize his own biases.

He's completely ignored state law when it supported his position. He's overturned 100 years of precedent to push his agenda. He's more of an activist than many liberals who have been on the court.

It's common though, I see it all the time, including here.

Basically, when someone reads the Constitution and interprets it the way they want to, they think that they are honestly viewing it the way it should be. So to that person, they are not being an activist at all, because it's pretty clear to them what it means.

The people on the other side of the issue are doing the exact same thing.

The problem comes when one side insists that they are the honest and true seekers of the truth of the Constitution, therefore implying that anyone who holds a different position is dishonest and evil.

The REAL truth is that there is no one true interpretation. If it was clear and obvious, we'd never need a Supreme Court at all, would we?

Instead, we get comments from hypocrites and people who are deluded who think that they have such great insight and understanding that they alone are the prophets of our national religion, and woe be it to anyone who questions their infallibility.
 
The founding fathers understood that the constitution would be and should be able to flex. It is the judges responsiblity to understand the spirit of the law and define it based on the situation.

The founding fathers built provisions into the constitution so that it should be allowed to be flexible, but their committment to the rights of the individual is NOT in doubt, nor was their desire to make that flexibility VERY difficult. We arent talking about a simple show of hands...it is a long process that requires state ratification. In light of the commitment to that process and the importance, NO judge or court ought to have the power to make law. NO judge or court ought to have the power to create policy.
 
He's an absolute hypocrite and doesn't mean a damn thing he said, or else is so clueless that he doesn't realize his own biases.

He's completely ignored state law when it supported his position. He's overturned 100 years of precedent to push his agenda. He's more of an activist than many liberals who have been on the court.

It's common though, I see it all the time, including here.

Basically, when someone reads the Constitution and interprets it the way they want to, they think that they are honestly viewing it the way it should be. So to that person, they are not being an activist at all, because it's pretty clear to them what it means.

The people on the other side of the issue are doing the exact same thing.

The problem comes when one side insists that they are the honest and true seekers of the truth of the Constitution, therefore implying that anyone who holds a different position is dishonest and evil.

The REAL truth is that there is no one true interpretation. If it was clear and obvious, we'd never need a Supreme Court at all, would we?

Instead, we get comments from hypocrites and people who are deluded who think that they have such great insight and understanding that they alone are the prophets of our national religion, and woe be it to anyone who questions their infallibility.
I think we were expecting something more scholarly here, since you have credentials. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom