USMB liberals, what is the role of SCOTUS to you?

[ColonelAngus]

Dude, do you have a podcast? I will listen.

I do not! My writing is better than my speaking, and I no rite so gud, so...

but thanks!

why does Kavanaugh freak you out so much?

Some of his writing on executive privilege and immunity seems potentially problematic to me. Obviously everyone on the left is concerned that his view of the constitution will lead him to reject the argument for a "penumbra" right to privacy which informs the Roe decision. I don't know how likely that really is, but I think it would be a pretty negative outcome.

I haven't spent enough time researching his judicial philosophy or record to have very strong expectations on how he would act in relation to the principles I outlined before, but from some comments of his that I've seen I don't think he would emphasize the role of the court in protecting constitutional ideals in the way that I would prefer.

However, the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee is Advice and Consent.

He is clearly judicially qualified to sit on the bench.

Dems made it political and resorted to character
Assassination because they lost the WH.

Perhaps they will learn from their mistakes and runs better candidate in 2020.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Seriously, board liberals, what do you think is the role of SCOTUS?

Just to give you a head start, the role of SCOTUS is to make sure that laws passed by Congress are Constitutional and enforced within the guidelines of the Constitution.

What do you think it’s for?

You just got an answer. What is your problem here?

Typical conservative thread

They demand a liberal response and then ignore all the responses they get and ask......why won’t liberals respond?

I know...it smacks of trolling.

Can’t have a rational discussion on the role of SCOTUS?

Sad.

You were given a rational answer which you duly ignored and went on to proclaim there were no answers...so do you want a rational discussion or don’t you?

My bad, what was the rational answer?

Please repost it. I honestly didn’t see it.

I will respond

 

[Coyote]

You just got an answer. What is your problem here?

Typical conservative thread

They demand a liberal response and then ignore all the responses they get and ask......why won’t liberals respond?

I know...it smacks of trolling.

Can’t have a rational discussion on the role of SCOTUS?

Sad.

You were given a rational answer which you duly ignored and went on to proclaim there were no answers...so do you want a rational discussion or don’t you?

My bad, what was the rational answer?

Please repost it. I honestly didn’t see it.

I will respond

Post #2

 

[ColonelAngus]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Democrats are upset with the change of the court Justices, now having to shift to being forced to use Congress to create laws.

This is post #2 on my screen.

What was the post?

 

[well named]

However, the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee is Advice and Consent.

He is clearly judicially qualified to sit on the bench.

You seem to be interpreting "advice and consent" in a pretty limited way, i.e. you seem to be suggesting that so long as a nominee has some minimal qualifications that senators are obligated to advance her. I disagree with that. Consent means something stronger than that to me. I don't have any objection to senators rejecting a nominee because of strong disagreements with their judicial philosophy, or because they think the nominee has the wrong temperament for the position, or other relevant reasons beyond legal qualifications. I think in a well-functioning government you would expect some give-and-take on that when the presidency and congress are controlled by competing parties, but I don't think it's different in principle from the way the presidential veto works in that situation. In the same way that congress is not obligated to vote in favor of laws the president favors, so the congress is not obligated to confirm nominees the president favors just because they are minimally qualified.

I do think the Senate ought to have some reasonable obligation to actually provide advice and consent, i.e. I believe they have an obligation to follow the process and either confirm or reject a nominee. I don't think they should refuse to hold hearings or refuse to vote. But it seems proper to me that they exercise their discretion in either approving or rejecting a nominee.

 

[ColonelAngus]

However, the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee is Advice and Consent.

He is clearly judicially qualified to sit on the bench.

You seem to be interpreting "advice and consent" in a pretty limited way, i.e. you seem to be suggesting that so long as a nominee has some minimal qualifications that senators are obligated to advance her. I disagree with that. Consent means something stronger than that to me. I don't have any objection to senators rejecting a nominee because of strong disagreements with their judicial philosophy, or because they think the nominee has the wrong temperament for the position, or other relevant reasons beyond legal qualifications. I think in a well-functioning government you would expect some give-and-take on that when the presidency and congress are controlled by competing parties, but I don't think it's different in principle from the way the presidential veto works in that situation. In the same way that congress is not obligated to vote in favor of laws the president favors, so the congress is not obligated to confirm nominees the president favors just because they are minimally qualified.

I do think the Senate ought to have some reasonable obligation to actually provide advice and consent, i.e. I believe they have an obligation to follow the process and either confirm or reject a nominee. I don't think they should refuse to hold hearings or refuse to vote. But it seems proper to me that they exercise their discretion in either approving or rejecting a nominee.

Uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault from 36 years ago does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of denial of the Constitutional mechanism afforded to the sitting president to appoint a judge to a vacant seat in SCOTUS.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

 

[ColonelAngus]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

Exactly, because they can add amendments with a 2/3 majority in the house and senate.

If you want to change the Constitution, do it through the legislative process,not through activist judges.

 

[well named]

Uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault from 36 years ago does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of denial of the Constitutional mechanism afforded to the sitting president to appoint a judge to a vacant seat in SCOTUS.

I've offered some thoughts on this elsewhere, but I think Lisa Murkowski and Benjamin Wittes probably did a better job putting it into perspective.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

 

[KGB]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

 

[ptbw forever]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

Amendments are a reanimation.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

How do you imagine that decision redefined the Constitution?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Liberals, let’s pony up.

What do you think is the role of SCOTUS and why does Kavanaugh freak you out so much?

Let me just say this...

If you pass Constitutional laws through the legislative process, you have nothing to worry about.

Kavanaugh seems to be a jurist who supports the Constitution.

Why does that scare you?

The lowlife piece of shits among us are pissing their pants over *** marriages, baby killing and ******* rights. Simple shit.

 

[rightwinger]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

 

[ColonelAngus]

Uncorroborated accusations of sexual assault from 36 years ago does not, in my opinion, rise to the level of denial of the Constitutional mechanism afforded to the sitting president to appoint a judge to a vacant seat in SCOTUS.

I've offered some thoughts on this elsewhere, but I think Lisa Murkowski and Benjamin Wittes probably did a better job putting it into perspective.

Probably related to the fact that he got mad because he was accused of gang rape.

And if he didn’t get mad, they would say he acted guilty.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

What role is that? The Militia clause has no legal implications whatsoever. "Interpreting" the Constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, not change what it says. Morons like you would have us believe that "the people" means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it means in the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

 

[rightwinger]

Where in the Constitution does it say money = free speech.

Activism goes both ways.

Either you're ignorant or a hypocrite.

The constitution IS a living breathing thing -- what do call the Amendments.

Look up the word Amendment.

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

What role is that? The Militia clause has no legal implications whatsoever. "Interpreting" the Constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, not change what it says. Morons like you would have us believe that "the people" means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it means in the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

 

[Dan Stubbs]

It seems the Constitutional role of SCOTUS and the liberal perception of the role of SCOTUS are not congruent.

What is the role the SCOTUS?

My daughter said the court is there to make the law fit the times that we live in.

This is from a Progressive, I guess two out of three is not bad.

 

[bripat9643]

The so-called "living constitution" is leftwing propaganda. When leftwingers use the term, they aren't referring to the amendment process. They are referring to the ability of leftwing justices to redefine what the document means and thereby create new law.

You mean like Heller?

Heller reaffirmed the original intent of the 2nd Amendment. I think you’re confusing this with Roe vs Wade...

It interpreted the second amendment and downplayed the role our founders planned for well regulated militias

Judicial Activism

What role is that? The Militia clause has no legal implications whatsoever. "Interpreting" the Constitution is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do, not change what it says. Morons like you would have us believe that "the people" means something different in the 2nd Amendment than it means in the First, Fourth and Tenth Amendments.

You are interpreting again
Leads to judicial activism

Wrong. I'm simply reading what the Constitution says. When you say "interpreting," you mean changing the meaning of the document to something that was never intended. When I say it, I mean applying the intended meaning to current legislation.