Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

[OldLady]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

They were just doing what biden himself advocated back in the 1990's. "What's good for the goose is good for the gander" as they say.

Did Biden do it? Are we still on that old "Biden Rule" which if you want to call it that, was never "enforced?" The Republicans were purposely obstructionist, but we all knew that. They put party before the people. Those vacancies hurt the people waiting for verdicts. Slowed the courts to a crawl in some areas. Justice shouldn't be flushed down the toilet because a bunch of Republican bullies have the numbers to stop business as usual. Just like they did with Garland.
Those people suck. Wish I could vote against every stinkin one of them.

Yes, they did indeed do it.

Show me.

 

[Penelope]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

 

[PredFan]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

Excellent post.

 

[Penelope]

Most of the judges will not make the far right happy.

They are hard to please.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one can.

Most of the judges will not make the far right happy.

They are hard to please.

 

[beagle9]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

. He should be proud, because appointing leftist judges to a bench is insane.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.

Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

despite no direct wording to that effect

The debate between loose and strict constructivist jurisprudence is as old as the country itself. Is there a high school graduate in the land who doesn't recall the Bank of the United States debate?

• Washington's Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a Bank of the United States. This bank would be a powerful private institution, the government would be a major stockholder, the federal Treasury would deposit surplus monies in it, it would stimulate business, and print paper money (for a much needed strong national currency).
• Jefferson argues against the bank. There was no authorization in the Constitution, and he was convinced that all powers not specifically granted to the central government were reserved to the states (supported by 10th amendment in Bill of Rights). Therefore, Jefferson believed that only the states had the power to charter banks. Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be interpreted literally -> theory of "strict construction." This theory was embraced by the faction antifederalists, and the political party that they would soon emerge into, the Democratic-Republicans.
• Hamilton believed that what the Constitution did not forbid it permitted. His support was the "elastic clause" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution). Congress may pass any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the powers vested in the various government agencies. This justified Congress in establishing a bank. The faction federalists, who would soon become the political party, Federalists, believed in loose construction/ the "elastic clause."
• Hamilton's argument convinced Washington, who signed the bank into Law 1791.
• Strict construction was for states' rights. Loose construction was for more power of the national government.
• The big importance of Strict vs. Loose Construction is it is the basis for the forming of political parties under President Adams. Strict=Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson/Madison). Loose=Federalists (Hamilton/Adams). The Bank issue was just the big thing that separated the two parties.

The very same topic is debated today in exactly the same way and on the same bases as it was in the 18th century. Today we call the two approaches "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint," but the substance is the same no matter the rhetorical monikers one invokes.

• Constitutional Interpretation and the Problem of History
  
• Constitutional Clichés
• Our Constitutions's Design: The Implications for Its Interpretation

The simple fact is that strict constructionists are such only as long as it suits their needs, and when that doctrine ceases to do so, they become judicial activists, to wit, conservatives' shifting jurisprudential philosophy when presenting their arguments re: the issues of gun control and abortion. There are myriad laws of which liberals and conservatives approve that are explicitly provided for in the Constitution and that are not. Thus it's just rank disingenuousness for members of either faction to propone what the Constitution expressly says or doesn't say as the basis for whatever position they hold.

What makes more sense is to consider any action or law in its own right and on its own merits and demerits, neither of which include what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Some things the Constitution expressly says make sense to adhere to strictly. Other things it says do not now, but they might later. It all comes down to what's the best course of action -- given the body of considerations and the extant situation -- to pursue at a given temporal crossroads.

 

[OldLady]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

I think it was pretty undemocratic for the Republicans under Obama not to take action on his nominees to fill those court vacancies when they were supposed to. It was their strategy, in hopes of loading the courts when a Republican won the WH. You're PROUD of that?

. He should be proud, because appointing leftist judges to a bench is insane.

Well, I'm not entranced with a bunch of right leaning judges unfairly flooding a system that is supposed to take fair turn and turn about.

 

[OldLady]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.

Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

despite no direct wording to that effect

The debate between loose and strict constructivist jurisprudence is as old as the country itself. Is there a high school graduate in the land who doesn't recall the Bank of the United States debate?

• Washington's Secretary of Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a Bank of the United States. This bank would be a powerful private institution, the government would be a major stockholder, the federal Treasury would deposit surplus monies in it, it would stimulate business, and print paper money (for a much needed strong national currency).
• Jefferson argues against the bank. There was no authorization in the Constitution, and he was convinced that all powers not specifically granted to the central government were reserved to the states (supported by 10th amendment in Bill of Rights). Therefore, Jefferson believed that only the states had the power to charter banks. Jefferson believed that the Constitution should be interpreted literally -> theory of "strict construction." This theory was embraced by the faction antifederalists, and the political party that they would soon emerge into, the Democratic-Republicans.
• Hamilton believed that what the Constitution did not forbid it permitted. His support was the "elastic clause" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution). Congress may pass any laws "necessary and proper" to carry out the powers vested in the various government agencies. This justified Congress in establishing a bank. The faction federalists, who would soon become the political party, Federalists, believed in loose construction/ the "elastic clause."
• Hamilton's argument convinced Washington, who signed the bank into Law 1791.
• Strict construction was for states' rights. Loose construction was for more power of the national government.
• The big importance of Strict vs. Loose Construction is it is the basis for the forming of political parties under President Adams. Strict=Democratic-Republicans (Jefferson/Madison). Loose=Federalists (Hamilton/Adams). The Bank issue was just the big thing that separated the two parties.

The very same topic is debated today in exactly the same way and on the same bases as it was in the 18th century. Today we call the two approaches "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint," but the substance is the same no matter the rhetorical monikers one invokes.

• Constitutional Interpretation and the Problem of History
  
• Constitutional Clichés
• Our Constitutions's Design: The Implications for Its Interpretation

The simple fact is that strict constructionists are such only as long as it suits their needs, and when that doctrine ceases to do so, they become judicial activists, to wit, conservatives' shifting jurisprudential philosophy when presenting their arguments re: the issues of gun control and abortion. There are myriad laws of which liberals and conservatives approve that are explicitly provided for in the Constitution and that are not. Thus it's just rank disingenuousness for members of either faction to propone what the Constitution expressly says or doesn't say as the basis for whatever position they hold.

What makes more sense is to consider any action or law in its own right and on its own merits and demerits, neither of which include what is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Some things the Constitution expressly says make sense to adhere to strictly. Other things it says do not now, but they might later. It all comes down to what's the best course of action -- given the body of considerations and the extant situation -- to pursue at a given temporal crossroads.

So are you saying calm down, it doesn't really matter?

 

[beagle9]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

. No example nessesary, because what is known by all is already known, and no amount of give me examples or links is going to change what people now know. No one here is like your boy Comey, who had to write notes down, because we carry the truth with us always once we hear it. It's like our guns, where as you won't be able to pry the truth out of our minds just like you won't be able to pry our guns out of our hands now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

^^ Sure, shaggy

beagle9, you just sound goofy

If you were opposed to Merrick Garland, you are not going to be happy about this group

 

[pdxex]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

LOL Yes.I have no fucking clue all right. My 35 years in law, friendships with people who REALLY run the country are trumped ( pun intended ) by you, a Goober on an obscure internet message board.
I'd say you are either a child or an idiot.....or both.But that's OBVIOUS!!!
Thanks for the laugh!

 

[miketx]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

No one was whining. Just pointing out the fact that democrats are losing again...under Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

 

[Penelope]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

. No example nessesary, because what is known by all is already known, and no amount of give me examples or links is going to change what people now know. No one here is like your boy Comey, who had to write notes down, because we carry the truth with us always once we hear it. It's like our guns, where as you won't be able to pry the truth out of our minds just like you won't be able to pry our guns out of our hands now.

So worried about your gun, no one wants your gun, but we do want tighter regulations. Well memories are not good, look at DT. Comey is smart, I also kept a journal of abnormalities at work because I cared for a lot of confused people, like DT.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Trump is unbelievably well-positioned to fill up federal courts with lifetime judges. He inherited a whopping 108 court vacancies when he became president – double the number of vacancies President Barack Obama inherited when he took office.

The left adores judges who believe that their job is to make society better by interpreting laws in new and creative ways. Once leftists discovered they could make up stuff like the "penumbra" of the Constitution and that judges could pretend their policy choices were required by law, despite no direct wording to that effect, the door was open to impose the Progressive Agenda without all the messiness of approving legislation in Congress, where the people have a voice.

That undemocratic – indeed, anti-democratic – approach to governing, wherein the elite discusses theories in academic journals, and then activist judges impose those theories as law, is popular among the cultural elite, because they believe themselves to be something like philosopher-kings, entitled to rule others by their superior wisdom. Their cultural preferences, such as same-sex marriage, gain the authority of law thereby.

Restoring a judiciary that believes its job is to interpret, not make up, the law is a reform that cannot happen fast enough.



Read more: Blog: Dems begin to panic as Trump set to transform federal judiciary

Since when did righties start believing anything the Huffington Post says?

 

[2aguy]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

LOL Yes.I have no fucking clue all right. My 35 years in law, friendships with people who REALLY run the country are trumped ( pun intended ) by you, a Goober on an obscure internet message board.
I'd say you are either a child or an idiot.....or both.But that's OBVIOUS!!!
Thanks for the laugh!

Hey...legal genius...tell us how ginsberg and the left wingers are right to use Foreign laws to rule on our Constitutional questions...genius...and as Ray from Cleveland pointed out....and I quote him...

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

And then tell us about gun laws....how left wingers on the 9th and the 4th Circuits routinely ignore the decision of Heller, and Miller and Caetano....and Murdoch to rule against gun ownership.....


Or how they ruled in Kelo...that local governments can use eminent domain to take property...to allow it to be sold to other private citizens simply because they think it will generate more tax revenue....genius....


Keep lying to yourself....

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Most of the judges will not make the far right happy.

No, most will, some may not.

 

[WaitingFor2020]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

Stating that Trump does not have the right to place a temporary ban on certain countries because of their religion when the law clearly states that he does have that right to do so.

State that federal law, if you don't mind. And a link.
If what Trump tried to do was constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court right now.

 

[2aguy]

Uh huh.
Most Judges, unless they are totally partisan or incompetent, follow the law.Not including Roy Moore.
This is regardless of who appointed them The same STUPID remarks (DEMS PANIC) were seen under Reagan, and both Bush's.
It's just dumb my friend.
The US Constitution is what it is, says what it says.To imagine the Judiciary is going to adopt nutcase fundy christian or internet rightie "ideas" or "theories" is ridiculous, as is your post.
It REALLY makes me laugh when righties whine about an activist, liberal judge................that was appointed by Ronald Reagan.

And you have no fucking clue......the left wingers on the Supreme Court want to use foreign laws to make their decisions, and have encouraged other countries not to use our Constitution as an example for their own......the left wing doesn't follow the law...they decide what the law should be based on their social justice cause......

Why not give us an example??

. No example nessesary, because what is known by all is already known, and no amount of give me examples or links is going to change what people now know. No one here is like your boy Comey, who had to write notes down, because we carry the truth with us always once we hear it. It's like our guns, where as you won't be able to pry the truth out of our minds just like you won't be able to pry our guns out of our hands now.

So worried about your gun, no one wants your gun, but we do want tighter regulations. Well memories are not good, look at DT. Comey is smart, I also kept a journal of abnormalities at work because I cared for a lot of confused people, like DT.

Please...tell us about these regulations that you want...you guys have started throwing out those phrases..."common sense gun control," "tighter regulations" as if that is all you have to say to take the higher moral ground....and then leave out any details as to what those would be, and how they would work...

The reason you leave out the details...because each time you give details...you are embarrassed at how silly your proposals actually are when they meet the real world....