Let me just remind you...

[TemplarKormac]

That the Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing this had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

It's legitimate, despite the GOP's efforts to turn the court into a joke with the Garland blocking.

Curious... it can't be legitimate and a joke at the same time can it?

Unless you're thinking "legitimate joke", in that case, your argument would be invalid and contradictory.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me posit this... if there were 9 conservative judges on that court, what would the probability be that they could rule on something purely based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution?

The same could play out with 9 liberal justices.

What would you think of that? What would you think of one ideology holding plenary power over the interpretation of our laws?

That would scare me personally.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me posit this... if there were 9 conservative judges on that court, what would the probability be that they could rule on something purely based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution?

The same could play out with 9 liberal justices.

What would you think of that? What would you think of one ideology holding plenary power over the interpretation of our laws?

That would scare me personally.

Ruling based on the Constitution, not legislating from the bench, that's an ideology? That makes you a "conservative" justice? No that just makes you a justice as the founders intended.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me posit this... if there were 9 conservative judges on that court, what would the probability be that they could rule on something purely based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution?

The same could play out with 9 liberal justices.

What would you think of that? What would you think of one ideology holding plenary power over the interpretation of our laws?

That would scare me personally.

Ruling based on the Constitution, not legislating from the bench, that's an ideology? That makes you a "conservative" justice? No that just makes you a justice as the founders intended.

It is unwise to claim we know exactly what the founders intended. Though unwittingly, you are making my case. You want justices that rule in favor of everything you support, not on the actual merits of our laws themselves.

Don't worry, you aren't the only one, people on both sides have this mentality, and it's dangerous. You're free by all means to maintain that mentality, but still dangerous nonetheless.

 

[BluesLegend]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me posit this... if there were 9 conservative judges on that court, what would the probability be that they could rule on something purely based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution?

The same could play out with 9 liberal justices.

What would you think of that? What would you think of one ideology holding plenary power over the interpretation of our laws?

That would scare me personally.

Ruling based on the Constitution, not legislating from the bench, that's an ideology? That makes you a "conservative" justice? No that just makes you a justice as the founders intended.

You want justices that rule in favor of everything you support, not on the actual merits of our laws themselves.

What a crock of shit, I just said I want justices who will rule based on the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

 

[Some Guy]

Get the Supreme Court. The courts run the show now. We have to accept that. Right now, it's a slim 5-4 advantage for Pro-America/Constitution Judges. But if Trump can 1 or 2 more Justices appointed, it could end up 7-2 in their favor. And that would amount to a Coup d'etat. The NWO Globalists would be finished for many years. Hopefully he'll at least get one more in there. But 2 more, would be an absolute dream come true.

I've always laughed/cried at the idea that the decisions that most need judgment on based on the constitution come down to political bias on the supreme court. The idea that "conservatives have 5, liberals have 4" is completely antithetical to the idea of the supreme court. You'd think that if their job really was to interpret the constitution from a legal standpoint, they'd all come down on largely the same side.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me posit this... if there were 9 conservative judges on that court, what would the probability be that they could rule on something purely based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution?

The same could play out with 9 liberal justices.

What would you think of that? What would you think of one ideology holding plenary power over the interpretation of our laws?

That would scare me personally.

Ruling based on the Constitution, not legislating from the bench, that's an ideology? That makes you a "conservative" justice? No that just makes you a justice as the founders intended.

You want justices that rule in favor of everything you support, not on the actual merits of our laws themselves.

What a crock of shit, I just said I want justices who will rule based on the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

It is from experience in numerous political forums that I ask... do you want them to rule based on the Constitution? Or based on your interpretation of the Constitution?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing those two things had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

Win some , lose some .. that's why we need a conservative Supreme court, they always do the right thing, abortion, gay marriage. It is always right

 

[BluesLegend]

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me posit this... if there were 9 conservative judges on that court, what would the probability be that they could rule on something purely based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution?

The same could play out with 9 liberal justices.

What would you think of that? What would you think of one ideology holding plenary power over the interpretation of our laws?

That would scare me personally.

Ruling based on the Constitution, not legislating from the bench, that's an ideology? That makes you a "conservative" justice? No that just makes you a justice as the founders intended.

You want justices that rule in favor of everything you support, not on the actual merits of our laws themselves.

What a crock of shit, I just said I want justices who will rule based on the Constitution and not legislate from the bench.

It is from experience in numerous political forums that I ask... do you want them to rule based on the Constitution? Or based on your interpretation of the Constitution?

When I say I want them to rule based on the Constitution that's precisely what I mean. Stop trying to read partisan crap into that. If the SCOTUS makes a ruling based on the Constitution I will support that ruling 100% even if personally I may have preferred they ruled differently. It would be nice if at least one branch of our government was above corruption.

 

[Avatar4321]

Of course the courts decisions are legitimate. Doesn’t mean they always make the right decision. Today they did

 

[Wyatt earp]

Of course the courts decisions are legitimate. Doesn’t mean they always make the right decision. Today they did

No they always do even if some of us don't like it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stop trying to read partisan crap into that.

I'm not reading anything into anything. Given how partisan this board can be, I find it difficult to believe anyone could have an objective view of the court, much less not want it to rule in favor of their political views.

Sorry if I upset you, but it's my nature to be skeptical.

 

[Dschrute3]

Get the Supreme Court. The courts run the show now. We have to accept that. Right now, it's a slim 5-4 advantage for Pro-America/Constitution Judges. But if Trump can 1 or 2 more Justices appointed, it could end up 7-2 in their favor. And that would amount to a Coup d'etat. The NWO Globalists would be finished for many years. Hopefully he'll at least get one more in there. But 2 more, would be an absolute dream come true.

I've always laughed/cried at the idea that the decisions that most need judgment on based on the constitution come down to political bias on the supreme court. The idea that "conservatives have 5, liberals have 4" is completely antithetical to the idea of the supreme court. You'd think that if their job really was to interpret the constitution from a legal standpoint, they'd all come down on largely the same side.

These days it's all about political ideology. Some on this current Court, don't care about the Constitution. In fact, they despise it. They'd like to see it go away. They're Soros-owned NWO Globalists.

The US Constitution is likely the only obstacle left for them, in achieving their New World Order. I thank God for Donald Trump. I truly hope he gets 1 or 2 more Justices in there. It will save our nation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dschrute3

Packing the courts ruins the legitimacy of their rulings. Never should we favor a lopsided court. Both sides should be equally represented when ruling on the merits of the law.

Appointing FLAMING LIBERALS who ignore the Constitution in favor of their personal opinions is what ruins the legitimacy of the court. The right want's to pack the court with justices who will rule based on the Constitution not their personal feelings, there's nothing wrong with that.

Let me posit this... if there were 9 conservative judges on that court, what would the probability be that they could rule on something purely based on their political beliefs and not on the constitution?

The same could play out with 9 liberal justices.

What would you think of that? What would you think of one ideology holding plenary power over the interpretation of our laws?

That would scare me personally.

Ruling based on the Constitution, not legislating from the bench, that's an ideology? That makes you a "conservative" justice? No that just makes you a justice as the founders intended.

It is unwise to claim we know exactly what the founders intended. Though unwittingly, you are making my case. You want justices that rule in favor of everything you support, not on the actual merits of our laws themselves.

Don't worry, you aren't the only one, people on both sides have this mentality, and it's dangerous. You're free by all means to maintain that mentality, but still dangerous nonetheless.

I don't believe the problem is that difficult, brother.

Constitutional Originalism: A Debate, by Robert W. Bennett and Lawrence B. Solum

1. Solum advocates originalism, which he summarizes in four key precepts: that the Constitution has a fixed meaning; that this meaning is the “original public meaning” as understood at the time of enactment; that that public meaning has the force of law; and finally, that constitutional interpretation (figuring out what the words mean) and constitutional construction (applying those words to a particular set of facts) are not the same thing.
2. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

 

[jc456]

If we get a Democrat controlled Senate, there will be no new justices until we do not have one or until there is a Democrat making the nominations.

Are Republicans okay with that?

IF?

 

[MarcATL]

We’ll see where you are when/if it happens.

Will you call out any Conservative who sees it as his constitutional right to pardon himself? Meaning that he can rape someone and murder their husband and then grant himself a pardon and still get in 3 rounds at Mar-a-Largo by sunset.

This is a good thread to save for future reference.

 

[MarcATL]

Justice Scalia’s coronary artery disease, obesity, diabetes, and, a whole host of other ailments had nothing to do with his death. It was the dems that took him out.

Psuedocons are the whackiest....not to mention funniest species on earth.

 

[Crepitus]

The Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

The one thing those two things had in common was that one side hailed the legitimacy of the court while the other questioned it. You can't do that. Either they are, or they aren't a legitimate court, they either are or aren't activists. It is pretty dishonest to change your opinion of the court simply when it rules for or against something you support politically or ideologically.

So, let me remind you, what the court says, goes. Whether you like it or not.

It's legitimacy has been in question since McConnell stole a seat and will be even more so given Kennedy's prior monetary relationship with the tRump family.

And let's not even talk about loyalty pledges for applicants.

 

[nat4900]

The Supreme Court holds the same legitimacy whether it rules for or against something you support. It ruled in favor of this travel ban today, Republicans cheered, Democrats lamented. In 2012 the court upheld Obamacare. Democrats cheered, Republicans lamented.

Except for one key difference......Most republican Trump supporters (like you) are MORONS.......
Why???..........Simple: They're IGNORANT and would vote against their OWN best interests because...........well,because as already stated, they're morons.

Trump voters would be among the biggest losers in Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan

Trump voters would be among the biggest losers in Republicans' Obamacare replacement plan