• 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!

Another female SCOTUS justice?

Lovebug said:
We should be outraged, period. :)


I don't care what gender they are. It is more important to me that they are fair and balanced in their interpretation of the law.
Click to expand...

The above would disqualify 7 at least of the sitting judges! Roberts now considered the centrist of the court.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
I hope he picks his sister. The only member of his family that is qualified for anything, and the only one with a lick of sense.

I researched her when I realized Trump had a Judge Sister he could appoint, and was worried about Nepotism. But, everything I found points to someone I like. Someone who thinks for themselves. And it's his big sister, so he can't boss her around.

Of the people Trump would (not could) pick, his sister is the best option.
Click to expand...

Trump did contemplate picking his sister in the past, but now that would never happen. Trump needs the GOP to protect him, and he needs his base's support. By picking his left leaning sister...he would lose a lot of support, maybe not so much from his base, but from the GOP.
 
Josie said:
...................and she's pro-choice.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump was also pro choice...until he ran for the Republican nomination.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
By asking judicial nominees to the SCOTUS exactly such questions. Since the nationwide banning of recreational drug use, possession or sale is not a federal power, granted by the constitution, then how would you rule on such a federal law? Since the mandated buying of any private good/service is not a federal power, granted by the constitution, then how would you rule on such a federal law?
Click to expand...

And you think those two questions are the clear cut answers?
or would you also have different ones? what about the arguments made and supported by judges and constitution scholars in the opposite view of yours? not saying i disagree with you just saying that it could still be opinion. me and you are certainly not federal judges or constitutional scholars. What if the candidate just gives the answer he thinks you want?
 
How about we put a layman on the court ?

There is no constitutional requirement that a judge has to be a lawyer, have passed the bar or...attended law school.
 
AGENT J said:
And you think those two questions are the clear cut answers?
or would you also have different ones? what about the arguments made and supported by judges and constitution scholars in the opposite view of yours? not saying i disagree with you just saying that it could still be opinion. me and you are certainly not federal judges or constitutional scholars. What if the candidate just gives the answer he thinks you want?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do - opinion supported by fact. What person, judge or not, could point to actual words in our constitution to support either a federal power over banning recreational drug use (while explaining why we had two constitutional amendments addressing that very matter) or the ability to mandate the purchase of any specific private good/service (or pay a federal tax penalty). The assertion that the 16A (the power to tax income from all sources) allowed for the PPACA individual mandate was simply BS (judicial activism?) of the highest order. All that I ask is for consistency and that does not include the power of the SCOTUS to grant new (or extended) federal powers w/o the need for constitutional amendment.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
By asking judicial nominees to the SCOTUS exactly such questions. Since the nationwide banning of recreational drug use, possession or sale is not a federal power, granted by the constitution, then how would you rule on such a federal law? Since the mandated buying of any private good/service is not a federal power, granted by the constitution, then how would you rule on such a federal law?
Click to expand...

Commerce clause. The capitalist being so devoutly passionate about his profits, needs govt. AND law on [his] side.

So they buy politicians to get in capitalist judges.

Works to this day as we have created personhood out of an abstract idea called a corp. and individuals and businesses
may own more or have more free speech in the bank than another.

So, the federal court using the Commerce Clause, gave congress the power to regulate everything...interstate. There you have it.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes, I do - opinion supported by fact. What person, judge or not, could point to actual words in our constitution to support either a federal power over banning recreational drug use (while explaining why we had two constitutional amendments addressing that very matter) or the ability to mandate the purchase of any specific private good/service (or pay a federal tax penalty). The assertion that the 16A (the power to tax income from all sources) allowed for the PPACA individual mandate was simply BS (judicial activism?) of the highest order. All that I ask is for consistency and that does not include the power of the SCOTUS to grant new (or extended) federal powers w/o the need for constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

Id like consistency too but my point is if something was ruled on in opposition to your opinion im sure theres many judges and scholars that agree with both sides...who is right and based on what?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Too often, folks look to the constitution for guidance on areas of law not addressed by it at all. Rather than be honest and say that is the constitution is simply not clear (thus a 5/4 outcome is all but assured?) on this case the SCOTUS opts to rule anyway - establishing precedent (by a single vote margin) which then carries nearly as much force as constitutional amendment.

Worse yet, the SCOTUS seems to want more federal power/national standards that are simply not found in the constitution as enumerated federal powers. Simply because something could become a federal power does not mean that the SCOTUS should have the power to make it one. It (rightly?) took constitutional amendment to ban/restore nationwide the use of alcohol as a recreational drug yet now such actions are a routine power of congress and/or the executive. The result, of course, is an endless 'war on drugs' often accompanied by civil asset forfeiture (also found nowhere in the constitution).

Perhaps the worst SCOTUS decision lately was making (finding?) PPACA constitutional - 4 justices said no based on the lack of (a forced?) commerce power, 4 justices said yes based on the (regulating - making it the same nationwide?) commerce power and 1 justice said yes based on the taxation (of income from all sources?) power. The right call was unconstitutional based on there being no federal power to force folks to buy any private good/service. Somehow, the states had a right to refuse a moronic PPACA federal demand (the expanded Medicaid mandate) on constitutional grounds yet not mere people.
Click to expand...

And why in your example...Orwell matters. Among the first things Big Brother (1984) did was to revise history and those who wish it...still do it.

Then change the meaning of words. With that, you get Roberts calling the mandate...a tax.
 
AGENT J said:
Id like consistency too but my point is if something was ruled on in opposition to your opinion im sure theres many judges and scholars that agree with both sides...who is right and based on what?
Click to expand...

It seems the we have now come full circle - based on the "real lean" of the constitution, of course.
 
Josie said:
Trump's short list has a couple of female judges on it. Wouldn't it be great to have another female representative on SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

I don't honestly care if the new justice is female or male, though I would like to see a conservative woman on the high court, and let's see if the militant left treats her the same way they do all other conservative women. It just makes them look worse and worse which only helps we who don't subscribe to that kind of hatefulness.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It seems the we have now come full circle - based on the "real lean" of the constitution, of course.
Click to expand...

Well for me it never changed..... i said i could handle decisions one way or another as long as it was based on constitutional views rather than biased right left lean... I totally get the idea that interpretation isn't always factual on every aspect. There are going to be differences but as long as those difference are objective and not party biased im fine with it.
 
AGENT J said:
Well for me it never changed..... i said i could handle decisions one way or another as long as it was based on constitutional views rather than biased right left lean... I totally get the idea that interpretation isn't always factual on every aspect. There are going to be differences but as long as those difference are objective and not party biased im fine with it.
Click to expand...

My bias is for a smaller, more limited federal roll in many areas yet the trend (by both major parties) in congress is for more federal power/control. Objectively, the constitutional writers were clearly for a limited federal government with specific (enumerated) powers and leaving all else up to the several states or to the people. The counter argument seems to be that whatever the congress does, since they were elected by the people, is all OK constitutionally.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
1.)My bias is for a smaller, more limited federal roll in many areas yet the trend (by both major parties) in congress is for more federal power/control.
2.) Objectively, the constitutional writers were clearly for a limited federal government with specific (enumerated) powers and leaving all else up to the several states or to the people.
3.) The counter argument seems to be that whatever the congress does, since they were elected by the people, is all OK constitutionally.
Click to expand...

1.) i agree
2.) i agree here in general too but the government was never going to stay that small, it has to grow with times to a CERTAIN degree. That by no means is an excuse for its current size and reach though
3.) not be my i dont view it that way at all
 
Puigb said:
Donald Trump was also pro choice...until he ran for the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...

I believe he still is. :shrug:
 
Josie said:
Trump's short list has a couple of female judges on it. Wouldn't it be great to have another female representative on SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

As long as she is an originalist and would avoid being an activist justice, I am okay with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom