Let's Start The National Debate

[The ClayTaurus]

Doesn't matter. Do you agree or disagree with my position? If you disagree what do you believe the role of the Supreme Court should be? How should we read the Constitution?

Kathianne sums up how I feel pretty well. I don't think you can ever create a set of rules that won't need to evolve over the course of history, but the framers left an out through the ammendment process to account for this, which I subscribe to.

 

[Mr. P]

I am pretty much with Kathiannes’ summery too.
I don’t subscribe to a “Living Breathing” document, but the amendment process keeps it “alive”. If it were dead it would be useless.

As far as “read through a prism of contemporary attitudes” goes.
I don’t see how we can totally avoid that, only insure as best we can, that those doing the reading are intelligent enough to apply the intent.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am pretty much with Kathiannes’ summery too.
I don’t subscribe to a “Living Breathing” document, but the amendment process keeps it “alive”. If it were dead it would be useless.

As far as “read through a prism of contemporary attitudes” goes.
I don’t see how we can totally avoid that, only insure as best we can, that those doing the reading are intelligent enough to apply the intent.

Actually the constitution says any power not explicitly given to the fed, remains the SOLE authority of the states. We don't need a prism of contemporary attitudes. The fed should be much smaller.

 

[5stringJeff]

Actually the constitution says any power not explicitly given to the fed, remains the SOLE authority of the states. We don't need a prism of contemporary attitudes. The fed should be much smaller.

 

[Mr. P]

Actually the constitution says any power not explicitly given to the fed, remains the SOLE authority of the states. We don't need a prism of contemporary attitudes. The fed should be much smaller.

Sure..I agree, but so what? If the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way we're screwed. Which is what everyone is bitchin about, isn't it? So there ya go..
And I didn't say we "needed" a prism of contemporary attitudes, but they can not be totally ignored either. Thus the flex in the ammendment procedure.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Those doing the reading so far seem to have their head pretty far up it. They're not smart.

 

[Zhukov]

If the SCOTUS doesn't see it that way we're screwed.

Screwed only by our own complacency. Justices who base their decisions on personal policy preferences should be impeached under Art. III Sec. 1 as violating the stipulation of 'good Behaviour' as is required for the tenure of their offices by the U.S. Constitution. Certainly deliberately misconstruing plain language in favor of one's own interests could be considered bad behaviour, today or two hundred and thirty years ago. I'd like to read the Supreme Court's opinion of that case...

 

[Mr. P]

Screwed only by our own complacency. Justices who base their decisions on personal policy preferences should be impeached under Art. III Sec. 1 as violating the stipulation of 'good Behaviour' as is required for the tenure of their offices by the U.S. Constitution. Certainly deliberately misconstruing plain language in favor of one's own interests could be considered bad behaviour, today or two hundred and thirty years ago. I'd like to read the Supreme Court's opinion of that case...

Don't read into what I said, I don't advocate nor support desisions based on personal policy.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I believe conservative Supreme Court Justices more often overturn the will of the Congress than moderate or liberal Supreme Court Justices.

Because its true.


Can anyone else come up with an objective quantitative way of measuring judicial activism that would show the liberal judges are more often guilty of it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I believe conservative Supreme Court Justices more often overturn the will of the Congress than moderate or liberal Supreme Court Justices.

Because its true.


Can anyone else come up with an objective quantitative way of measuring judicial activism that would show the liberal judges are more often guilty of it?

Yeah. Reading the constitution and trying to reconcile it with the assinine court opinions. Can you tell me where the right to abortion is in the constitution?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yeah. Reading the constitution and trying to reconcile it with the assinine court opinions. Can you tell me where the right to abortion is in the constitution?

Read the courts opinion. Has something to do with the implicit right of privacy. Though Justice Roberts believes that right to privacy to be more than implicit, if you believe his confirmation testimony.


Do you have a quantitative way of objectively measuring a judges judicial activism?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Read the courts opinion. Has something to do with the implicit right of privacy. Though Justice Roberts believes that right to privacy to be more than implicit, if you believe his confirmation testimony.


Do you have a quantitative way of objectively measuring a judges judicial activism?

Abortion is not about privacy. That contention is also logically flawed. It's obvious when a judge is pulling things out of their ass. You can get snickety about metrics if you wish, but it seems foolish to me.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Abortion is not about privacy. That contention is also logically flawed.

Well, that's you opinion, but those with the legal authority to make that decision disagree with you. To bad.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well, that's you opinion, but those with the legal authority to make that decision disagree with you. To bad.

Yeah. And they're dishonest idiots with an agenda. It's not about privacy, it's about life and death and the rights of the most defenseless amongst us, in utero babies.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Yeah. And they're dishonest idiots with an agenda. It's not about privacy, it's about life and death and the rights of the most defenseless amongst us, in utero babies.

Fetuses. Who aren't citizens. Who live inside another person. Who has rights.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Fetuses. Who aren't citizens. Who live inside another person. Who has rights.

It's still not in the constitution.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It's still not in the constitution.

Nor does the Constitution say that you are allowed to write what you want online. It only says that "speach" is protected. This isn't speach, this is writing. So I guess by your strict literalist interpretation, freedom to write what you want should not be protected, right?


Actually, it doesn't even literally say that the state government can't pass a law inhibiting speach. The 14th amendment implies it, but it isn't explicitly stated, so you believe state and local governments should be able to inhibit your free speach?

It also only says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, " - so this means its ok for the FBI to inhibit free speach, right, as long as they aren't doing it in accordance with a law passed by Congress? Right?

You also believe that ordinary citizens should be able to purchase Stinger Missiles, too, right, since it says they can't infringe on our right to bear arms?





Or perhaps you'd like to take the ever stricter literalist intepretation of the authors of the alien and sedition acts, and suppose that its OK for Congress to punish you for your speach, so long as they don't do anything physical to prevent you from saying it? Afterall, if you are punished for saying something, you still said it, right? So your freedom to say it wasn't violated - you got to say it. So the Alien and Sedition Acts are A OK with you?

 

[Zhukov]

Don't read into what I said, I don't advocate nor support desisions based on personal policy.

I didn't read anything into what you wrote. I was merely commenting on your assertion that there are judicial activists on the bench and that there was nothing we could do about it, hence: screwed. My point is that it's our own fault.

I believe conservative Supreme Court Justices more often overturn the will of the Congress than moderate or liberal Supreme Court Justices.

First of all prove it. Second, it doesn't really matter if it's true or not. Originalists and activists alike can overturn the will of the Congress. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not that overturning is based on the Constitution as it is written or if it is based on the ruling judge or judges' personal opinion.

Can anyone else come up with an objective quantitative way of measuring judicial activism that would show the liberal judges are more often guilty of it?

Anyone else? That would imply you yourself have come up with one, which you have not.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

First of all prove it. Second, it doesn't really matter if it's true or not. Originalists and activists alike can overturn the will of the Congress. That's irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not that overturning is based on the Constitution as it is written or if it is based on the ruling judge or judges' personal opinion.

Why would I bother proving something to you if you don't care either way if its true or not?

Anyone else? That would imply you yourself have come up with one, which you have not.

No, it would imply someone has. The justices have already been ranked according to the number of times they choose to throw out laws passed by Congress. The data was compiled by the New York Times. If you've got similar data compiled by your favorite right wing source, please share it. Trouble is, right wing media sources are afraid of numbers and facts.

Percent of the time they voted to overturn the law as passed by Congress:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

If you can come up with a better quantitative objective method, let us know. Other than that, its just your opinion. Hint: First define judicial activism.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yeah. Overturning congressional intent is not the litmus test of activism you think it is Spidey.