Progressives scrambles to block potential Supreme Court nominee Amy C. Barrett because she is a ...

[RetiredGySgt]

Wha

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

What basis does the judicial branch have for crafting law to create a "right" to end the life of another?

What basis does the judicial branch have for creating law at all? Can you point to the article or amendment that grants this branch not only legislative power, but Super-legislative power than need no ratification as the inferior legislation of the congress does?

What law did they create?

The law allowing abortion AGAINST State law. For one, another was allowing gay marriage AGAINST State law for another.

 

[Coyote]

Wha

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

What basis does the judicial branch have for crafting law to create a "right" to end the life of another?

What basis does the judicial branch have for creating law at all? Can you point to the article or amendment that grants this branch not only legislative power, but Super-legislative power than need no ratification as the inferior legislation of the congress does?

What law did they create?

The law allowing abortion AGAINST State law. For one, another was allowing gay marriage AGAINST State law for another.

Oh and banning slavery...don’t forget that one...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wha

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

What basis does the judicial branch have for crafting law to create a "right" to end the life of another?

What basis does the judicial branch have for creating law at all? Can you point to the article or amendment that grants this branch not only legislative power, but Super-legislative power than need no ratification as the inferior legislation of the congress does?

What law did they create?

The law allowing abortion AGAINST State law. For one, another was allowing gay marriage AGAINST State law for another.

Oh and banning slavery...don’t forget that one...

So you would be AGAINST the court on that since you claim precedent for precedent sake is all that matters, further the Court did not ban slavery Congress did.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Wha

Be honest. You're afraid Roe is on the chopping block. If there's an aspect of it that's unconstitutional, it should be overturned.

I oppose overturning it yes. But I also oppose overturning laws that are considered established with a considerable caseload supporting that decision. You guys would term such a judge as activist. If someone starts down that road, where does it end? Every time there is a ideological shift in the courts they go back down the list and overturn prior rulings? Think. Roe v Wade this time...might be your precious gunrights next. There are decisions I would love to see reversed (citizens united) but picking a judge based upon a willingness to do that is dangerous imo.

Actually, we prefer originalists, jurists who rule based on the Constitution's original meaning, not what's been cooked up between then and now to justify otherwise unconstitutional expansions of government power. If that means overruning something that is popular, so be it.

Within that are protections for the free exercise of religion. That means no religious tests for public office or running a business. The law applies equally to all, which means no protected classes. Either all are accommodated and protected or none are.

Speech is protected from government interference, and so is the reaction to that speech. That means Kathy Griffen is free to be obnoxious and the public is free to turn their backs on her. And on it goes. What is so scary about that?

So, do you think that rights, once given, can be overturned and taken away?

What basis does the judicial branch have for crafting law to create a "right" to end the life of another?

What basis does the judicial branch have for creating law at all? Can you point to the article or amendment that grants this branch not only legislative power, but Super-legislative power than need no ratification as the inferior legislation of the congress does?

What law did they create?

Are you drunk?

YOU said they created law and that you feared that putting a Christian on the court might endanger the unconstitutional action they took.

Progressives scrambles to block potential Supreme Court nominee Amy C. Barrett because she is a ...

You Stalinists LOVE dictatorship.

 

[Silhouette]

All that judicial legislation at risk now that the Court is going to pay attention to the Constitution.

First: behaviors don't escape majority rule.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Oh and banning slavery...don’t forget that one...

?????

The SCOTUS didn't ban slavery.

That was the 13th Amendment, legally passed by the Legislature per the constitution, then ratified by the states.

See how that works? The representatives of the people crafting laws and having them seconded by the states?

A bit different than 7 unelected dictators simple declaring law.

 

[hunarcy]

Supreme Court candidates' views on abortion under scrutiny

She has spoken publicly about her conviction that life begins at conception, and in a 2003 law journal article, she argued that courts could be more flexible in overturning prior "errors" in precedent. She noted that courts have struggled over when to keep "an erroneous decision" on the books, citing as an example Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a major 1992 Supreme Court ruling that upheld Roe.

So which of her decisions were driven by her convictions over the Constitution? Be specific.

And since we already have justices wanting to use foreign law Instagram of our own, I'm not sure what your complaint really is.

What I am actually concerned about is a willingness to overturn established law.

So, you don't think Plessy v. Ferguson should have been overturned by Brown v Board of Education? Plessy was established law, after all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The democrat Party loses bigly by opposing a very smart , capable white Christian SCOTUS pick even if scumbag McCain comes out against her. The hearings will coincide and drown out Muellers fake investigations. Blacks won't come out to support democrats, illegals are sent home, Christians will come out strongly in favor of Trump and flip 10 democrat Senate seats

 

[Silhouette]

So, you don't think Plessy v. Ferguson should have been overturned by Brown v Board of Education? Plessy was established law, after all.

Does anyone know if a USSC decision has ever been overturned because one of the Justices gave an interview to the press just weeks before the Hearing, saying that s/he was going to use his/her seat of power to force an unwanted institution on 50 states that s/he declared in the interview, in spite of knowing the majority heatedly protested his/her views, "America is ready for (insert contested issue here)"?

Any case overturned for a Justice flagrantly advertising clear and undeniable bias towards one set of litigants BEFORE the Hearing (and then casting exactly as s/he indicated the bias to be)?