Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....
...
not buying the premise.
your argument here is about as political in nature as it gets. Your post shows very little true concern for the US Constitution or the principles behind it. Oh, I know you must think it does, but then again people who do great harm to others and institutions in the name of saving them, almost always have what they consider good reasons for what they say and do.
In a way you are right. Adoration of the constitution has been a huge block in our way to becoming a modern nation. It is vague to the point that it has become whatever five old men/women say it is and these five old people are usually appointed for their devotion to ideology rather than their judicial expertise. (think Clarence Thomas)
So yes, I do think the constitution needs amending to change the structure of the Supreme court to something like I proposed. The court was not supposed to be political. It was not set up as a check to congressional legislation. It was set up to administer national and international law.
If we are to continue to charge it with the ability to veto legislation it has to be more of a court and less of a political circus.
For Cryin out loud! Dante thanked me??? So that's why it's so hot up here. Hell froze over and we're in front of the AC vent.
I have to go bathe in lye now.
:::madly scrubbing::: It won't come off! The thanks won't come off! Why won't it come off
not buying the premise.
your argument here is about as political in nature as it gets. Your post shows very little true concern for the US Constitution or the principles behind it. Oh, I know you must think it does, but then again people who do great harm to others and institutions in the name of saving them, almost always have what they consider good reasons for what they say and do.
In a way you are right. Adoration of the constitution has been a huge block in our way to becoming a modern nation. It is vague to the point that it has become whatever five old men/women say it is and these five old people are usually appointed for their devotion to ideology rather than their judicial expertise. (think Clarence Thomas)
So yes, I do think the constitution needs amending to change the structure of the Supreme court to something like I proposed. The court was not supposed to be political. It was not set up as a check to congressional legislation. It was set up to administer national and international law.
If we are to continue to charge it with the ability to veto legislation it has to be more of a court and less of a political circus.
if you say so, but still don't buy the main premise "It's obvious the Court has become political in nature..."
The premise is not obvious to people with a critical thinking skill set.
The Court has always struggled with political issues and ideology. But I say what you are talking about is more rare than common. But then again, I know a bit about the history of the Court. Most people here speak about what the Us Constitution says. The Founding Fathers and the Framers often disagreed with each other and even themselves.
The history of the Court makes the main premise look like fantasy or worse -- overly political partisanship with ideology driving people's world views.
Falling back on what people imagine the Constitution says is often the arguments of weak minded small people.
Everyone knows Obamacare is unconstitutional, even Obama... It's that part of one side (as they are in a minority) does not believe in the constitution. It's really that simple. The constitution and FF’s said no, Obama and some supporters say yes.
I love the concept of this thread.
The OP is proposing to go directly against the Constitution, because in his opinion, the Supreme Court is going against the Constitution.
You and me agree on this.I love the concept of this thread.
The OP is proposing to go directly against the Constitution, because in his opinion, the Supreme Court is going against the Constitution.
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....
some suggestions....
1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...
2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...
3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....
4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....
some suggestions....
1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...
2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...
3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....
4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....
agree or disagree....?
It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....
some suggestions....
1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...
2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...
3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....
4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....
agree or disagree....?
Presently, Supreme Court Justices are sworn to support and defend the Constitution as interpreted by [CBS, NBC, ABC].
I agree, that should change.
.
But on this issue of federal power, Kennedy was firm. The conservatives refused to even engage with Roberts on joining his opinion to uphold the law. They set out writing their own opinion - they wrote it to look like a majority decision, according to sources, because they hoped Roberts would rejoin them to strike down the mandate. Kennedy relentlessly lobbied Roberts until the end to come back. Of course he did not, and the conservatives' decision became a dissent.
Now this conflict has been brewing for some time. You can trace it back to the first full term of the new Roberts Court. That term had several controversial cases, including school busing and abortion. Liberal justices thought Roberts had signaled he would be open to compromise and be more moderate. But he sided with conservatives that year, making the liberals feel misled. They were furious. As one said at the time: "He talks the talk, but won't walk the walk."
