CDZ Federal Judge Says Constitution is outdated

[Sundance508]

Good to see someone being honest.....now of course there are many naive and misguided souls out there that still believe the constitution protects them....I refer them to George W. Bush aka "they keep shoving the constitution in my face....the constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper"

Many Presidents have violated the constitution and none more so than the present one....ramifications? None.

Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution

 

[LA RAM FAN]

A Judge on the zionists payroll of Israel no doubt.

 

[JoeMoma]

I suspect many judges agree but are smart enough to not say it.

 

[2aguy]

Good to see someone being honest.....now of course there are many naive and misguided souls out there that still believe the constitution protects them....I refer them to George W. Bush aka "they keep shoving the constitution in my face....the constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper"

Many Presidents have violated the constitution and none more so than the present one....ramifications? None.

Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution

The judge is a fool.......once you remove the Constitution you have mob rule......it is like the scene in the Lord of The Rings with the Ring of Power at the Council of Elrond......

If the left wingers were there you could explain to them all day long that using the Ring would turn them into souless slaves of the power of the Ring.....and they would just keep saying..."But, we will have unlimited power..right?" The left, being children as they are, don't look past the here and now....that is why they take the stands that they do......spend and spend and spend...no need to be fiscally responsible, get rid of guns since we live in a nice country right now...everything they do ignores human history and human behaviour and they could care less about the future...they want power, now.....fuck everyone else...

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The beauty of the COTUS is that it is NEVER outdated. Some of the Amendments contained within certainly might become outdated but the very document provides for a remedy to that, insuring that we can update as needed.

 

[Coyote]

I wouldn't trust anyone these days, to have the knowledge, intelligence and discipline to alter the Constitution with out destroying it.

 

[JoeMoma]

The beauty of the COTUS is that it is NEVER outdated. Some of the Amendments contained within certainly might become outdated but the very document provides for a remedy to that, insuring that we can update as needed.

I agree. However, the Supreme Court seems to have put itself in the place to remedy anything about the constitution that might need updating. The amendment process seems to have fallen by the way side. A ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling that created language not in the Constitution to begin with equals legislation from the bench.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The beauty of the COTUS is that it is NEVER outdated. Some of the Amendments contained within certainly might become outdated but the very document provides for a remedy to that, insuring that we can update as needed.

I agree. However, the Supreme Court seems to have put itself in the place to remedy anything about the constitution that might need updating. The amendment process seems to have fallen by the way side. A ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling that created language not in the Constitution to begin with equals legislation from the bench.

A ruling you don't like is not "legislating from the bench " sir.

Though I believe SCOTUS has became FAR too politicized in the last 20 years. So much so, that I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment changing the selection method used.

Here's what I suggest. The President and the highest ranked member of the opposing party TOGETHER choose a candidate and that candidate is voted on by the Senate.

Further, by law this candidate must be proposed within 30 days of the vacancy coming open and a vote MUST be given within 30 days of the candidate being named.

Put Obama and Ryan in a room and tell them they aren't coming out until they have a candidate who is acceptable to BOTH of them and tell the Senate they aren't getting paid until they vote on said candidate. No more of this refusing to hold a vote bullshit.

 

[JoeMoma]

The beauty of the COTUS is that it is NEVER outdated. Some of the Amendments contained within certainly might become outdated but the very document provides for a remedy to that, insuring that we can update as needed.

I agree. However, the Supreme Court seems to have put itself in the place to remedy anything about the constitution that might need updating. The amendment process seems to have fallen by the way side. A ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling that created language not in the Constitution to begin with equals legislation from the bench.

A ruling you don't like is not "legislating from the bench " sir.

Though I believe SCOTUS has became FAR too politicized in the last 20 years. So much so, that I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment changing the selection method used.

Here's what I suggest. The President and the highest ranked member of the opposing party TOGETHER choose a candidate and that candidate is voted on by the Senate.

Further, by law this candidate must be proposed within 30 days of the vacancy coming open and a vote MUST be given within 30 days of the candidate being named.

Put Obama and Ryan in a room and tell them they aren't coming out until they have a candidate who is acceptable to BOTH of them and tell the Senate they aren't getting paid until they vote on said candidate. No more of this refusing to hold a vote bullshit.

Whether I like a ruling or not has nothing to do with legislating from the bench. I gave a good description previously for legislating from the bench.

 

[JoeMoma]

The beauty of the COTUS is that it is NEVER outdated. Some of the Amendments contained within certainly might become outdated but the very document provides for a remedy to that, insuring that we can update as needed.

I agree. However, the Supreme Court seems to have put itself in the place to remedy anything about the constitution that might need updating. The amendment process seems to have fallen by the way side. A ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling that created language not in the Constitution to begin with equals legislation from the bench.

A ruling you don't like is not "legislating from the bench " sir.

Though I believe SCOTUS has became FAR too politicized in the last 20 years. So much so, that I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment changing the selection method used.

Here's what I suggest. The President and the highest ranked member of the opposing party TOGETHER choose a candidate and that candidate is voted on by the Senate.

Further, by law this candidate must be proposed within 30 days of the vacancy coming open and a vote MUST be given within 30 days of the candidate being named.

Put Obama and Ryan in a room and tell them they aren't coming out until they have a candidate who is acceptable to BOTH of them and tell the Senate they aren't getting paid until they vote on said candidate. No more of this refusing to hold a vote bullshit.

I like you proposed process for picking judges. .

 

[candycorn]

The beauty of the COTUS is that it is NEVER outdated. Some of the Amendments contained within certainly might become outdated but the very document provides for a remedy to that, insuring that we can update as needed.

I agree. However, the Supreme Court seems to have put itself in the place to remedy anything about the constitution that might need updating. The amendment process seems to have fallen by the way side. A ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling that created language not in the Constitution to begin with equals legislation from the bench.

A ruling you don't like is not "legislating from the bench " sir.

Though I believe SCOTUS has became FAR too politicized in the last 20 years. So much so, that I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment changing the selection method used.

Here's what I suggest. The President and the highest ranked member of the opposing party TOGETHER choose a candidate and that candidate is voted on by the Senate.

Further, by law this candidate must be proposed within 30 days of the vacancy coming open and a vote MUST be given within 30 days of the candidate being named.

Put Obama and Ryan in a room and tell them they aren't coming out until they have a candidate who is acceptable to BOTH of them and tell the Senate they aren't getting paid until they vote on said candidate. No more of this refusing to hold a vote bullshit.

Placing anything in context of the parties disqualifies it from consideration.
If you’re going to have the Senate vote anyway…what is wrong with the current system?

 

[Kristian]

If you’re going to have the Senate vote anyway…what is wrong with the current system?

Nothing wrong. I wanna Johnson ready in 2016 then 2020 and all forever.

 

[miketx]

Time to go to the mattresses.

 

[Vigilante]

THIS is why the states should DISMISS any court decrees that go against what their Legislature passed! .... Like the Obomanation, simply REFUSE to prosecute what the court says...We now have Precedents!

 

[oldsoul]

Good to see someone being honest.....now of course there are many naive and misguided souls out there that still believe the constitution protects them....I refer them to George W. Bush aka "they keep shoving the constitution in my face....the constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper"

Many Presidents have violated the constitution and none more so than the present one....ramifications? None.

Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution

“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” he continued. “Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.” Pulled from referenced article.

"The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed." According to
Primary Documents in American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)14thamendment.html

"The 13th Amendment to the Constitution declared that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Formally abolishing slavery in the United States, the 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the states on December 6, 1865." also from the Library of congress. 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Primary Documents of American History (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress)

So, I guess in Richard Posner's opinion, slavery is still legal.
He should be removed from the bench immediately for mental incompetency.

 

[Votto]

Good to see someone being honest.....now of course there are many naive and misguided souls out there that still believe the constitution protects them....I refer them to George W. Bush aka "they keep shoving the constitution in my face....the constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper"

Many Presidents have violated the constitution and none more so than the present one....ramifications? None.

Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution

He thinks studying the Constitution is pointless?

I thought all Progressives thought this, why is this news?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The beauty of the COTUS is that it is NEVER outdated. Some of the Amendments contained within certainly might become outdated but the very document provides for a remedy to that, insuring that we can update as needed.

I agree. However, the Supreme Court seems to have put itself in the place to remedy anything about the constitution that might need updating. The amendment process seems to have fallen by the way side. A ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling on top of a ruling that created language not in the Constitution to begin with equals legislation from the bench.

A ruling you don't like is not "legislating from the bench " sir.

Though I believe SCOTUS has became FAR too politicized in the last 20 years. So much so, that I believe we need a Constitutional Amendment changing the selection method used.

Here's what I suggest. The President and the highest ranked member of the opposing party TOGETHER choose a candidate and that candidate is voted on by the Senate.

Further, by law this candidate must be proposed within 30 days of the vacancy coming open and a vote MUST be given within 30 days of the candidate being named.

Put Obama and Ryan in a room and tell them they aren't coming out until they have a candidate who is acceptable to BOTH of them and tell the Senate they aren't getting paid until they vote on said candidate. No more of this refusing to hold a vote bullshit.

Placing anything in context of the parties disqualifies it from consideration.
If you’re going to have the Senate vote anyway…what is wrong with the current system?

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

 

[Disir]

Good to see someone being honest.....now of course there are many naive and misguided souls out there that still believe the constitution protects them....I refer them to George W. Bush aka "they keep shoving the constitution in my face....the constitution is just a g.d. piece of paper"

Many Presidents have violated the constitution and none more so than the present one....ramifications? None.

Veteran Federal Judge’s Stunning Declaration About the Constitution

He's critiquing originalism. That is all. He isn't the first and he won't be the last.

 

[candycorn]

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

No.

The current system promotes gridlock because the Constitution is silent on a great many matters. It is my opinion that the framers could not imagine a state of affairs to where an elected body would simply choose not to fulfill their duties. So we need to give voice to the Constitution where it is lacking. The courts are just one area to where this truth is evident.

As for your proposal…Whenever you mention “parties”, you’re nowhere because we have several parties in the nation already. If the libertarians ever get around to wbeing serious, they could be a force. What then? Do we have to notify them too or the most prevalent opposition party to the President? Next, if you’re going to have the Senate vote up or down on the selection, it’s largely no different than the current selection process. The only thing that is different is that you’re taking away the Senate’s “advise” functionality.

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The current system promotes gridlock because of the partisanship of the idiots who keep electing partisan idiots . Unless you give one party ALL the power in which case the Senate would simply rubber stamp their President's pick .

Under MY proposal, Obama and Ryan would have been forced to work together to choose a candidate and the Senate would have been forced to vote.

Further, this prevents President from choosing candidates who are either too far left or too far right, depending on their own political leanings, and provides for a more even keeled, less political judicial.

No.

The current system promotes gridlock because the Constitution is silent on a great many matters. It is my opinion that the framers could not imagine a state of affairs to where an elected body would simply choose not to fulfill their duties. So we need to give voice to the Constitution where it is lacking. The courts are just one area to where this truth is evident.

As for your proposal…Whenever you mention “parties”, you’re nowhere because we have several parties in the nation already. If the libertarians ever get around to wbeing serious, they could be a force. What then? Do we have to notify them too or the most prevalent opposition party to the President? Next, if you’re going to have the Senate vote up or down on the selection, it’s largely no different than the current selection process. The only thing that is different is that you’re taking away the Senate’s “advise” functionality.

At some point, you’ve got to trust the President who is duly elected by the people

It doesn't matter who or which party has the power. There could be 12 parties represented in Congress and yet there will still only be one Majority or Minority leader (depending on if the same party holds both Congress and the WH)

I'm fairly certain that if the GOP held the White House and the Dem Party held the Senate you would be arguing that the Senate Leader should have a say in the judicial nominee.