• 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!

Judge Napolitano for SCOTUS!

Fishking said:
How so?
Click to expand...

Some people believe that the SCOTUS should be able o overstep their bounds
And re-write the constitution outside the amendment process.
 
Goshin said:
I find him quite acceptable.
Click to expand...

Need to do some more research but he very much is very strict in the constitution from some of the articles I have seen.
 
haymarket said:
A far right libertarian hardly sends the signal to the nation to heal our divisions.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, Libertarians seems to have a better handle on what the Constitution actually means.

2. You seem to be misunderstanding the jobs of a judge. They aren't there to heal any divisions. Their job is to ignore all of them and everyone and to rule according to the original intent of the Constitution.
 
Fishking said:
1. Yes, Libertarians seems to have a better handle on what the Constitution actually means.

2. You seem to be misunderstanding the jobs of a judge. They aren't there to heal any divisions. Their job is to ignore all of them and everyone and to rule according to the original intent of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The only;y thing libertarians have a better handle on is pie in the sky.
 
haymarket said:
So you also agree that Libertarians are experts in pie in the sky. Terrific.
Click to expand...

Lol...again, proving my statement true. Not only do you not have anything substantial to back up your hyperbole but you have to invent meaning to my words. You have nothing.
 
Fishking said:
Lol...again, proving my statement true. Not only do you not have anything substantial to back up your hyperbole but you have to invent meaning to my words. You have nothing.
Click to expand...

What statement of yours are you referring to?
 
haymarket said:
What statement of yours are you referring to?
Click to expand...

That Libertarians seem to have a better grasp on the Constitution. This is on display in this very thread, when you stated you thought it was part of the SCOTUS's job to heal divides.
 
Fishking said:
That Libertarians seem to have a better grasp on the Constitution. This is on display in this very thread, when you stated you thought it was part of the SCOTUS's job to heal divides.
Click to expand...

Perhaps the Libertarian who fashions themselves so knowledgable about the Constitution might be surprised to know that the document has a Preamble which applies to the entire document and one purpose of it is to achieve a more perfect union. That would amply cover bringing the nation together as one.
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps the Libertarian who fashions themselves so knowledgable about the Constitution might be surprised to know that the document has a Preamble which applies to the entire document and one purpose of it is to achieve a more perfect union. That would amply cover bringing the nation together as one.
Click to expand...

Enumerated powers, the 10th Amendment, you know...no biggies. Totally not as important as a preamble.
 
Fishking said:
Enumerated powers, the 10th Amendment, you know...no biggies. Totally not as important as a preamble.
Click to expand...

Which changes nothing and my previous point stands.
 
Yeah, judge Nap would be OK. But I'm not sure he was on the Don's list of possibles he published earlier during the campaign.But now that
there are so many other people involved in the decision making, maybe that list doesn't count for as much as it had once.
 
haymarket said:
Which changes nothing and my previous point stands.
Click to expand...

Lol...no it doesn't. And you don't even know enough to know what you don't know.
 
haymarket said:
Suggestions like this remind me of reading about the different levels of Hell in Dante's INFERNO.
Click to expand...

I just read that about a month ago. It's quite fitting.
 
Fishking said:
I've followed this judge for years and I've always felt he had the right perspective on things. I think Judge Napolitano would make an excellent judge that will rule in the vein of the Constitution and help reign in the power that has been ceded to the federal government and bring it back down to the states.

Click to expand...

Like you I have observed this man for quite a few years. Strong respect for him but I don't believe he is on Trump's list, which was just updated.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-justices.html
 
Considering who is doing the picking, I don't mind a Napolitano nomination. He is anti-drug war and pro-4th amendment. Trump could do much worse. I doubt this will happen, though.
 
haymarket said:
A far right libertarian hardly sends the signal to the nation to heal our divisions.
Click to expand...

Honestly, can you think of a way Napolitano would hurt SC more than any other Trump nominee? Him being a libertarian, at least the guy has a couple positives, unlike the more socially conservative types.
 
Geoist said:
Honestly, can you think of a way Napolitano would hurt SC more than any other Trump nominee? Him being a libertarian, at least the guy has a couple positives, unlike the more socially conservative types.
Click to expand...

What would you say those positives are ?
 
Geoist said:
I mentioned a couple of them in this thread: 4th Amendment issues and the Drug War.
Click to expand...

Please don't go there on the so called Drug War which never was in the first place.
 
haymarket said:
Please don't go there on the so called Drug War which never was in the first place.
Click to expand...

There never was a Drug War? :confused:

Tell that to the countless young inner-city black males imprisoned for the nonviolent crime of holding weed.
 
Geoist said:
There never was a Drug War? :confused:

Tell that to the countless young inner-city black males imprisoned for the nonviolent crime of holding weed.
Click to expand...

There may have been a half assed half hearted effort aimed at half the nation - but the most over used words in governmental action is WAR ON _______________ fill in the blank.

World War II was a true war. A total mobilization of society to achieve one goal above all else. And that was the last time this country went to war on anything.

You want a WAR ON DRUGS that truly was a war? Read what Mao did in China after taking over to eradicate the nation of opium. Not thats a WAR ON DRUGS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom