For the people or for the elites?

[Sheldon]

No one will do a better job. They just need to do a better job.

Then you need to talk to the politicians who select and approve overly ideological judges - on both sides.

I don't think that will be a problem in the near future. Once we have the ability to clone humans, we can just dig John Marshall from the grave and make nine of him!

Problem solved.

 

[goldcatt]

No one will do a better job. They just need to do a better job.

Then you need to talk to the politicians who select and approve overly ideological judges - on both sides.

I don't think that will be a problem in the near future. Once we have the ability to clone humans, we can just dig John Marshall from the grave and make nine of him!

Problem solved.

Save room for a couple Learned Hands too.

And while I didn't always agree with him, we've got to have a Felix Frankfurter just for shits and giggles.

 

[Sheldon]

Then you need to talk to the politicians who select and approve overly ideological judges - on both sides.

I don't think that will be a problem in the near future. Once we have the ability to clone humans, we can just dig John Marshall from the grave and make nine of him!

Problem solved.

Save room for a couple Learned Hands too.

And while I didn't always agree with him, we've got to have a Felix Frankfurter just for shits and giggles.

I don't like making compromises. Nine Marshalls, or I'm gonna call you an un-American.

 

[rdean]

No one will do a better job. They just need to do a better job.

Then you need to talk to the politicians who select and approve overly ideological judges - on both sides.

I don't think that will be a problem in the near future. Once we have the ability to clone humans, we can just dig John Marshall from the grave and make nine of him!

Problem solved.

Marshall laid down the basic theory of implied powers under a written Constitution; a written, but a living, Constitution, intended, as he said "to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs ... ." Marshall envisaged a federal government which, although governed by timeless principles, possessed the plenary powers "on which the welfare of a nation essentially depends." It would be free in its choice of means, not tied to a literal interpretation of the Constitution, and open to change and growth.

John Marshall - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Open to "chnage"? "Growth"?

Sounds like a "liberal".

Change and growth are the LAST things conservatives want. The very LAST things.

 

[JScott]

This thread is case in point why we need the scholars.

The scholars have had their time.. we need more rednecks.

We dont need regression.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't think that will be a problem in the near future. Once we have the ability to clone humans, we can just dig John Marshall from the grave and make nine of him!

Problem solved.

Save room for a couple Learned Hands too.

And while I didn't always agree with him, we've got to have a Felix Frankfurter just for shits and giggles.

I don't like making compromises. Nine Marshalls, or I'm gonna call you an un-American.

An un-American???

Oh noes! How ever will I survive?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say, " We don't need scholars to tell us what we can read for ourselves." Are you suggesting we don't need a Supreme Court to be the final arbiter of our laws? If that wasn't your meaning then disregard my following statement, but, if it was your intent, then one must note that the Constitution provides for our Highest Court to do just that.

I tell you what, Punkin. You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws", and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be. Until that point, I will pigheadedly persist in believing that this isn't a dictatorship with a handful of oligarchs ruling us all.

I'll be waiting on that PRECISE, WORD FOR WORD quote from the Constitution where it "provides for our Highest Court to do just that", but I won't hold my breath.

Something else you said, and something I'd like to talk about, was "The people aren't stupid, contrary to some people's opinions." Now, you were not talking about a "stupid electorate" in the contest of what I'm going to bring up, but, as we all know, "Stupid Is As Stupid Does!"

Sadly, I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to our voting habits, all of us............. ALL OF US ..............., are indeed, very stupid!

By that, I mean, we seem incapable of doing the most basic thing in human development and learn from our past mistakes. Quite the contrary, we seem to insist on doubling down on those very mistakes.

For example, we had a glorious period in our history...........the 50's and 60's. Anyone who wanted to work, no matter their level of education could find a job. More often or not, that job could last for 40 years, or more. A couple working in a textiles mill, for example, could have a home, a car, raise a family, clothe, education, and feed them, and be absolutely certain they would be passing a better way of life along to those who came after them.

But, then we had a series of politicians................ FROM BOTH PARTIES ............come along and tell us we could do better. We could do better if we changed the direction of where our tax dollars went away from the middle class and and toward the higher income brackets. We were told the government services we demanded need not be paid for. And we were told we would be better off if the tax codes were rewritten to more favor the better off among us.

I don't condemn us for failing for that snake oil pitch. After all, it really did sound good. What leads me to conclude we are truly a stupid nation is we can't seem to learn that it is not only a pipe dream, but also that it is the exact opposite of what we should be doing. But, instead of changing toward something that might work, and has worked in the past, we stupidly insist on traveling that same road that, for the past 30 years, has taken us further and further from our "best of times."

People ARE sometimes stupid. Politicians are people. So explain to me how the concentrated stupidity of a handful of people is better than the dispersed stupidity of the electorate. What possible evidence do you have that we're better off cutting the people out of the equation?

The Supreme Court was set forth in Article III of the Constitution.

I have no idea where you concluded from what I wrote that "we're better off cutting the people out of the equation." If, and I readily admit it's a huge "IF," we are able to regain any sense of economic sanity, it will be done by "the people" electing "people" who are courageous enough to do so.

That was a very cute attempt at a dodge, but unfortunately, it would only work on someone as stupid as you are. I didn't ask you to tell me which Article of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Court, you disingenuous piece of dog offal. I told you to cite me THE SPECIFIC QUOTE where the Supreme Court is made the FINAL ARBITER OF THE LAW. Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

 

[Papa Jack]

I tell you what, Punkin. You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws", and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be. Until that point, I will pigheadedly persist in believing that this isn't a dictatorship with a handful of oligarchs ruling us all.

I'll be waiting on that PRECISE, WORD FOR WORD quote from the Constitution where it "provides for our Highest Court to do just that", but I won't hold my breath.



People ARE sometimes stupid. Politicians are people. So explain to me how the concentrated stupidity of a handful of people is better than the dispersed stupidity of the electorate. What possible evidence do you have that we're better off cutting the people out of the equation?

The Supreme Court was set forth in Article III of the Constitution.

I have no idea where you concluded from what I wrote that "we're better off cutting the people out of the equation." If, and I readily admit it's a huge "IF," we are able to regain any sense of economic sanity, it will be done by "the people" electing "people" who are courageous enough to do so.

That was a very cute attempt at a dodge, but unfortunately, it would only work on someone as stupid as you are. I didn't ask you to tell me which Article of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Court, you disingenuous piece of dog offal. I told you to cite me THE SPECIFIC QUOTE where the Supreme Court is made the FINAL ARBITER OF THE LAW. Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

What do you think the word "Supreme" in Supreme Court means. Don't worry about me "wasting your time." I have other folks with which to debate who know how to conduct themselves. You need not ever worry about me engaging with you!

 

[Sheldon]

I tell you what, Punkin. You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws", and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be. Until that point, I will pigheadedly persist in believing that this isn't a dictatorship with a handful of oligarchs ruling us all.

I'll be waiting on that PRECISE, WORD FOR WORD quote from the Constitution where it "provides for our Highest Court to do just that", but I won't hold my breath.



People ARE sometimes stupid. Politicians are people. So explain to me how the concentrated stupidity of a handful of people is better than the dispersed stupidity of the electorate. What possible evidence do you have that we're better off cutting the people out of the equation?

The Supreme Court was set forth in Article III of the Constitution.

I have no idea where you concluded from what I wrote that "we're better off cutting the people out of the equation." If, and I readily admit it's a huge "IF," we are able to regain any sense of economic sanity, it will be done by "the people" electing "people" who are courageous enough to do so.

That was a very cute attempt at a dodge, but unfortunately, it would only work on someone as stupid as you are. I didn't ask you to tell me which Article of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Court, you disingenuous piece of dog offal. I told you to cite me THE SPECIFIC QUOTE where the Supreme Court is made the FINAL ARBITER OF THE LAW. Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

Do you know what "judicial review" means?

I can't believe you're actually trying to press this point, it's been dead for about two-hundred years.

Free Education:
FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions

Read the entire opinion. It's brilliant.

 

[Sheldon]

Save room for a couple Learned Hands too.

And while I didn't always agree with him, we've got to have a Felix Frankfurter just for shits and giggles.

I don't like making compromises. Nine Marshalls, or I'm gonna call you an un-American.

An un-American???

Oh noes! How ever will I survive?

You'll be fine. It's a good way to thicken skin before I start calling you a socialist.

 

[goldcatt]

I don't like making compromises. Nine Marshalls, or I'm gonna call you an un-American.

An un-American???

Oh noes! How ever will I survive?

You'll be fine. It's a good way to thicken skin before I start calling you a socialist.

A socialist?!?!?!?!

I'm so hurt. Devastated. Crushed, even.

 

[goldcatt]

I tell you what, Punkin. You show me anywhere in the law where the Supreme Court was created as and appointed to be the "final arbiter of our laws", and I'll consider the possibility that we NEED them to be. Until that point, I will pigheadedly persist in believing that this isn't a dictatorship with a handful of oligarchs ruling us all.

I'll be waiting on that PRECISE, WORD FOR WORD quote from the Constitution where it "provides for our Highest Court to do just that", but I won't hold my breath.



People ARE sometimes stupid. Politicians are people. So explain to me how the concentrated stupidity of a handful of people is better than the dispersed stupidity of the electorate. What possible evidence do you have that we're better off cutting the people out of the equation?

The Supreme Court was set forth in Article III of the Constitution.

I have no idea where you concluded from what I wrote that "we're better off cutting the people out of the equation." If, and I readily admit it's a huge "IF," we are able to regain any sense of economic sanity, it will be done by "the people" electing "people" who are courageous enough to do so.

That was a very cute attempt at a dodge, but unfortunately, it would only work on someone as stupid as you are. I didn't ask you to tell me which Article of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Court, you disingenuous piece of dog offal. I told you to cite me THE SPECIFIC QUOTE where the Supreme Court is made the FINAL ARBITER OF THE LAW. Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

Great. Another self-proclaimed "Constitutionalist" who doesn't know her head from her ass but wants to tell everybody else what to think. You're a dime a dozen, cesspit. The only thing separating you from the rest of the idiot pack is your open sewer of a mouth. Congratulations, you stand out after all.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Supreme Court was set forth in Article III of the Constitution.

I have no idea where you concluded from what I wrote that "we're better off cutting the people out of the equation." If, and I readily admit it's a huge "IF," we are able to regain any sense of economic sanity, it will be done by "the people" electing "people" who are courageous enough to do so.

That was a very cute attempt at a dodge, but unfortunately, it would only work on someone as stupid as you are. I didn't ask you to tell me which Article of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Court, you disingenuous piece of dog offal. I told you to cite me THE SPECIFIC QUOTE where the Supreme Court is made the FINAL ARBITER OF THE LAW. Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

What do you think the word "Supreme" in Supreme Court means. Don't worry about me "wasting your time." I have other folks with which to debate who know how to conduct themselves. You need not ever worry about me engaging with you!

THAT'S your answer? "They're called 'Supreme'. That means they can do whatever they want. Now go away, you mean person!" And you run crying like a pigtailed girl?

I don't worry about you engaging me, asshat. You haven't engaged me so far.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Supreme Court was set forth in Article III of the Constitution.

I have no idea where you concluded from what I wrote that "we're better off cutting the people out of the equation." If, and I readily admit it's a huge "IF," we are able to regain any sense of economic sanity, it will be done by "the people" electing "people" who are courageous enough to do so.

That was a very cute attempt at a dodge, but unfortunately, it would only work on someone as stupid as you are. I didn't ask you to tell me which Article of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Court, you disingenuous piece of dog offal. I told you to cite me THE SPECIFIC QUOTE where the Supreme Court is made the FINAL ARBITER OF THE LAW. Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

Do you know what "judicial review" means?

I can't believe you're actually trying to press this point, it's been dead for about two-hundred years.

Free Education:
FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions

Read the entire opinion. It's brilliant.

When I ask you to cite me Supreme Court decisions on what powers the Supreme Court should have, this will be relevant. When I ask you to decide for me what is and isn't a live issue, I might be interested in what you can and can't believe I'm "pressing".

Meanwhile, I asked about the Constitution. You might have heard of it once or twice. Read the entire document. It's brilliant.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The Supreme Court was set forth in Article III of the Constitution.

I have no idea where you concluded from what I wrote that "we're better off cutting the people out of the equation." If, and I readily admit it's a huge "IF," we are able to regain any sense of economic sanity, it will be done by "the people" electing "people" who are courageous enough to do so.

That was a very cute attempt at a dodge, but unfortunately, it would only work on someone as stupid as you are. I didn't ask you to tell me which Article of the Constitution sets forth the Supreme Court, you disingenuous piece of dog offal. I told you to cite me THE SPECIFIC QUOTE where the Supreme Court is made the FINAL ARBITER OF THE LAW. Now, if you need me to break out the ******* crayons and draw you a picture so you understand what I said, let me know. Otherwise, stop wasting my time with your bullshit and get on it.

Great. Another self-proclaimed "Constitutionalist" who doesn't know her head from her ass but wants to tell everybody else what to think. You're a dime a dozen, cesspit. The only thing separating you from the rest of the idiot pack is your open sewer of a mouth. Congratulations, you stand out after all.

So far, we're 0 for 3. I've gone through a sniveling girlie-man, and lawyer's butt-sniffer, and now you, and not a single one of you can do what should be the simplest thing imaginable: cut and paste the section of the Constitution that establishes the Supreme Court as the "final arbiter of the law". I wonder why that is?

See, I'm sitting here, looking at your post, and what I see is, "Goddamn it, how DARE you disrupt our happy little fantasy with all these facts!" It couldn't be more obvious that I'm right, and you know I'm right.

Go ahead, call me "cesspit" again. That must have been one smart seventh-grader you got that from. And it sure does hide the fact that you don't have answer.

Oh, and I would never DREAM of telling you what to think. That'd be like giving street directions in a place with no roads.

 

[jillian]

What is ridiculous is the thought that anyone ever believed the meaning of the constitution should be determined by 'the people'. everything the founding fathers did was to make sure 'the people' could NOT impose their will on the constitution. THAT is why it takes such great effort to amend it. that way the torch and pitchfork crowd can't take away people's rights every time something offends their widdle sensibilities

Everything in the constitution, if properly construed, is intended to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, the very 'people' you talk about. the constitution doesn't even give 'the people' the right to directly vote for their president.

And the fact that a bunch of yahoo's think they KNOW what the constitution means when scholars have been discussing these issues for hundreds of years (BECAUSE REASONABLE PEOPLE CAN DIFFER) is EXACTLY why you're not the ones who are supposed to construe the constitution.

Finally, BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUE THE CONSTITUTION BELONGS TO THE SUPREME COURT. It says so in that document you like to talk about but haven't an ounce of understanding about.

Fahrshteit?

 

[jillian]

Do you know what "judicial review" means?

I can't believe you're actually trying to press this point, it's been dead for about two-hundred years.

Free Education:
FindLaw Supreme Court Center: Landmark Decisions

Read the entire opinion. It's brilliant.

isn't it wonderful how they prove my point.

they shouldn't be allowed within 1000 miles of determining anyone else's rights.

 

[jillian]

When I ask you to cite me Supreme Court decisions on what powers the Supreme Court should have, this will be relevant. When I ask you to decide for me what is and isn't a live issue, I might be interested in what you can and can't believe I'm "pressing".

Meanwhile, I asked about the Constitution. You might have heard of it once or twice. Read the entire document. It's brilliant.

actually, he referred you to marbury v madison. that is the decision that says who is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. and it isn't the 'masses'. in fact, the 'masses' are the last people who are supposed to construe it.

you should try reading it, it might be helpful to you.

until then, yes, the constitution is briliant. and when you understand it, i'm sure you'll think it is even more so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

When I ask you to cite me Supreme Court decisions on what powers the Supreme Court should have, this will be relevant. When I ask you to decide for me what is and isn't a live issue, I might be interested in what you can and can't believe I'm "pressing".

Meanwhile, I asked about the Constitution. You might have heard of it once or twice. Read the entire document. It's brilliant.

actually, he referred you to marbury v madison. that is the decision that says who is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. and it isn't the 'masses'. in fact, the 'masses' are the last people who are supposed to construe it.

you should try reading it, it might be helpful to you.

until then, yes, the constitution is briliant. and when you understand it, i'm sure you'll think it is even more so.

Hmmm. And what was Marbury v Madison? Supreme Court decision, wasn't it? So where do you get off saying, "Actually" to me, as though I was incorrect?

I can only assume that when you say, "Understand it", you mean, "Accept that what we tell you is correct is correct, and stop that horrible thinking for yourself stuff." And believe me, when I want lessons on being a mindless sheep led to the fleecing and slaughter, you'll be the first teacher I come to.

 

[goldcatt]

When I ask you to cite me Supreme Court decisions on what powers the Supreme Court should have, this will be relevant. When I ask you to decide for me what is and isn't a live issue, I might be interested in what you can and can't believe I'm "pressing".

Meanwhile, I asked about the Constitution. You might have heard of it once or twice. Read the entire document. It's brilliant.

actually, he referred you to marbury v madison. that is the decision that says who is the final arbiter of what is constitutional. and it isn't the 'masses'. in fact, the 'masses' are the last people who are supposed to construe it.

you should try reading it, it might be helpful to you.

until then, yes, the constitution is briliant. and when you understand it, i'm sure you'll think it is even more so.

Hmmm. And what was Marbury v Madison? Supreme Court decision, wasn't it? So where do you get off saying, "Actually" to me, as though I was incorrect?

I can only assume that when you say, "Understand it", you mean, "Accept that what we tell you is correct is correct, and stop that horrible thinking for yourself stuff." And believe me, when I want lessons on being a mindless sheep led to the fleecing and slaughter, you'll be the first teacher I come to.

Keep going, please. It's fascinating. Like a particularly nasty train wreck.