• 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!

Chief justice urges progress naming judges

That is true, but show me where in the Constitution where the issues of abortion and gay rights are given to the Federal government to determine. You won't find it. What you will find, though, is the 10th Amendment, which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This is true. There are some things I would support government involvement in if proper amendments were made to the constitution.
 
That is true, but show me where in the Constitution where the issues of abortion and gay rights are given to the Federal government to determine. You won't find it. What you will find, though, is the 10th Amendment, which states:

But you forget the 9th Amendment, which states:

The Ninth Amendment said:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So while the Constitution may not list exhaustively all the rights of a person, the 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated rights of the people, from the federal government as well as from state governments and local governments.
 
I agree with this and i think it's safe to say danarhea will too.

Well, judges can only do that through the power of judicial review though.
 
But you forget the 9th Amendment, which states:



So while the Constitution may not list exhaustively all the rights of a person, the 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated rights of the people, from the federal government as well as from state governments and local governments.

true enough but some stuff congress does violates both the ninth and the tenth. social security, the war on drugs and any federal gun control for example

I would note that Bork was the first Justice in modern times turned down for reasons other than integrity or qualifications and Estrada the first appellae pick blocked by the minority party for racist reasons
 
The president has earned the right to pick who he chooses. The only reason to my mind to stop such a pick is that they are somehow actually unqualified, not because they might rule in a way they don't like. This is true even if it's a republican president.

When he was a senator Barack Obama voted against confirming both of Bush's supreme court nominees.
 
the justice system is where we want to see grown adults playing tit-for-tat.

This isn't tit for tat. This is a life and death struggle between two competing ideologies and worldviews. The side which loses is thoroughly dominated by the side that wins.
 
true enough but some stuff congress does violates both the ninth and the tenth. social security, the war on drugs and any federal gun control for example

I would note that Bork was the first Justice in modern times turned down for reasons other than integrity or qualifications and Estrada the first appellae pick blocked by the minority party for racist reasons

Well, I'm not going to get into which acts of who violated it - I'm just stating that the Supreme Court, and other courts, has the power of judicial review to ensure that Congress does not violate the Ninth Amendment as they interpret it.
 
When he was a senator Barack Obama voted against confirming both of Bush's supreme court nominees.

Did you see the part where Redress said, "This is true even if it's a republican president?"

Just when I think you couldn't own yourself any worse with your own words, you go and own yourself with someone else's.
 
Did you see the part where Redress said, "This is true even if it's a republican president?"

Just when I think you couldn't own yourself any worse with your own words, you go and own yourself with someone else's.

On second thought, you're not all that smart.:)
 
... says the individual who seems to specialize in self-contradiction and responding to what they imagine others have said, rather than what they actually said.
 
... says the individual who seems to specialize in self-contradiction and responding to what they imagine others have said, rather than what they actually said.

Stick to the subject of the thread, don't comment on the other members, and I won't have to draw you to the attention of the moderators.
 
Lol_wut_shoop.png
 
Well, judges can only do that through the power of judicial review though.

Yeah,” pick your poison”… If they don’t review it they can’t screw it up so it’s almost better at this point if they don’t review it.
 
So do you think the right should confirm Obama's nominations despite the fact that Obama voted against Bush's nominations?

I think it's time for the politicians on both sides to stop acting like children past-due for their afternoon nap.
 
Oh, for crying out loud.

Okay, since I wasn't obvious enough or literal enough for you I think that both major parties need to stop holding up judicial nominations for reasons beyond the qualifications of the nominee.

Obama voted against the Bush nominees. Now you don't want the same rules applied to Obama. That's all this is about.
 
Back
Top Bottom