Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 81

Thread: Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:00 AM
    Posts
    12,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    Homework: read Article III. Vocabulary exercise: Look up verbs "to make" and "to construe." Extra credit: read Marbury v. Madison and actually understand what it says.
    Done. Nothing that I have read changes my mind in the slightest. Now a question for you. Why is it that you think appointments to the SCOTUS have become so contentious?

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. Itís the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 6:59 AM
    Posts
    11,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    And that's why the smarter half of the country couldn't vote until the 20th century.

    The 15th is possibly the consensus today (don't bet on it) but it wasn't then, and I don't think ANY of them could get ratified in this contentious political climate.
    These certainly ARE hyper-partisan times, and likely not a wise time to pin one's hopes on a new Amendment of any sort. The absolute "resistance" by the Dems is something I've never seen; I suspect they're about to pay dearly for that choices or, in their opinion, be showered with majorities and electoral sweeps.

    To me the whole thing looks like a tectonic stress point, another "unprecedented" temblor accompanying the passing of the Baby Boomer generation. We are charged with determining the legacy of that generation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
    It does no such thing. Context is important. 80z wants to construe every law and the Constitution as it would have been construed in 1789. Can't be done, because the laws of 1789 applied to the social, technological, geographic and political realities of 1789. To say that everything should be construed as it would have been in 1789 is equivalent to saying we should behave as if there is no wall current or flush toilet in our homes. The founders did not intend us to be stuck with a horse-and-buggy Constitution; they simply couldn't provide for every future development. So they wisely vested in the USSCt the power to decide how the Constitution applies as times change.
    I think you grandly overstate the role of judicial review, and so play into the precise fears of those Founders about the idea. They were wise, I'd agree, but not unanimous.

    The Supreme Court can't "proofread" legislation, so to speak, speculate or render legal opinions without a genuine case to consider, and even then other constraints about jurisdiction and such come into play. The purpose of judicial review is to resolve dispute, not to freshen up the Constitution.

    When necessary the Court clarifies the Constitution, as it did recently in settling interpretations of the Second Amendment, and in doing so often opens the door to new law. They should be very cautious about opening such doors, since often what's revealed is a Pandora's box.

    Activists seek cases and justices who will render "interpretations" they want, of course, and if successful they will have achieved their goal more efficiently by an order of magnitude than by slogging through the sausage factory. That's why ideology threatens to become a litmus test for judicial nominees.

    In my view the Constitution is a contract between We the People and our government, and perhaps the highest obligation of the Court is to see that the terms of that contract are not autocratically changed. Judicial review must be applied very conservatively, with great restraint, lest it become merely a tool to bypass that contract.
    Last edited by Newman; Tuesday, December 26th, 2017 at 4:29 AM.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:00 AM
    Posts
    12,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    These certainly ARE hyper-partisan times, and likely not a wise time to pin one's hopes on a new Amendment of any sort. The absolute "resistance" by the Dems is something I've never seen; I suspect they're about to pay dearly for that choices or, in their opinion, be showered with majorities and electoral sweeps.

    To me the whole thing looks like a tectonic stress point, another "unprecedented" temblor accompanying the passing of the Baby Boomer generation. We are charged with determining the legacy of that generation.

    I think you grandly overstate the role of judicial review, and so play into the precise fears of those Founders about the idea. They were wise, I'd agree, but not unanimous.

    The Supreme Court can't "proofread" legislation, so to speak, speculate or render legal opinions without a genuine case to consider, and even then other constraints about jurisdiction and such come into play. The purpose of judicial review is to resolve dispute, not to freshen up the Constitution.

    When necessary the Court clarifies the Constitution, as it did recently in settling interpretations of the Second Amendment, and in doing so often opens the door to new law. They should be very cautious about opening such doors, since often what's revealed is a Pandora's box.

    Activists seek cases and justices who will render "interpretations" they want, of course, and if successful they will have achieved their goal more efficiently by an order of magnitude than by slogging through the sausage factory. That's why ideology threatens to become a litmus test for judicial nominees.

    In my view the Constitution is a contract between We the People and our government, and perhaps the highest obligation of the Court is to see that the terms of that contract are not autocratically changed. Judicial review must be applied very conservatively, with great restraint, lest it become merely a tool to bypass that contract.
    That is exactly what is happening today, and its the reason that appointments to the court are now so contentious.

    Gay marriage is an excellent example. EVERY person in America had the same rights, and the SCOTUS created a new right.

    They had no authority to do so.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. Itís the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Friday, March 6th, 2020 @ 8:26 PM
    Posts
    14,904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Well, shit, we can't have ideology being a litmus test for appointing judges. That's why only judges who agree with my opinions on judicial review should be appointed.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Wednesday, October 2nd, 2013
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    15,051
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Newman View Post
    The absolute "resistance" by the Dems is something I've never seen ...
    Sorry to hear about your 8 year coma.
    "The universe we live in increasingly resembles some kind of dark satire about the decline of the United States."

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:00 AM
    Posts
    12,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Well, shit, we can't have ideology being a litmus test for appointing judges. That's why only judges who agree with my opinions on judicial review should be appointed.
    Lol. SO you really believe that ideology should sculpt interpretation of the law? No wonder we are in the mess we are.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. Itís the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Tuesday, October 22nd, 2013
    Last Online
    Friday, March 6th, 2020 @ 8:26 PM
    Posts
    14,904
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by 80zephyr View Post
    Lol. SO you really believe that ideology should sculpt interpretation of the law? No wonder we are in the mess we are.

    Mark
    Your prescription for avoiding ideological tests is an ideological test.

    James Madison thought that the U.S. having a central bank was unconstitutional. Alexander Hamilton disagreed. They were both founding fathers, both signed the Declaration of Independence, both participated in the constitutional convention. This idea you have that the constitution is so clear and simple that it never requires interpretation (or that any interpretation is as straightforward as paint-by-numbers) is just plain silly.
    Last edited by Norm dePlume; Tuesday, December 26th, 2017 at 11:39 AM.

  8. #78
    Join Date
    Saturday, January 3rd, 2015
    Last Online
    Today @ 7:00 AM
    Posts
    12,347
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Your prescription for avoiding ideological tests is an ideological test.

    James Madison thought that the U.S. having a central bank was unconstitutional. Alexander Hamilton disagreed. They were both founding fathers, both signed the Declaration of Independence, both participated in the constitutional convention. This idea you have that the constitution is so clear and simple that it never requires interpretation (or that any interpretation is as straightforward as paint-by-numbers) is just plain silly.
    Whats silly is that you claimed I said that. What I said was that, yes, sometimes the Constitution needs to be interpreted, but those times should be damn fewer than what is happening today. Today they find "clarity" in smudging the document.

    Mark
    Race Card: A tool of the intellectually weak and lazy when they cannot counter a logical argument or factual data.

    "Liberals have to stop insisting that the world is what they want it to be instead of the way it is." - Bill Maher

    Political correctness is ideological fascism. Itís the antithesis of freedom. Dr. Piper

    Gender is not a "Social Construct", it is an outgrowth of biological reality.

  9. #79
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 6:59 AM
    Posts
    11,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Jingo View Post
    Sorry to hear about your 8 year coma.
    Thanks. We are recovering from all the successes of that interregnum.

  10. #80
    Join Date
    Friday, November 1st, 2013
    Last Online
    Today @ 6:59 AM
    Posts
    11,718
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    Well, shit, we can't have ideology being a litmus test for appointing judges. That's why only judges who agree with my opinions on judicial review should be appointed.
    That would be simplest, certainly.

    Our notion of ideology has come to seem all-encompassing, but it's not. Values like honesty are non-ideological, or should be. (Some ideologies accept means-to-an-end dishonesty. I don't think that's tolerable in a free society.)

    I would count among non-ideological values restraint in re-appraising our founding principles. I find this value in the very word judicious.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •