|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> New SCJ.......... /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1530202139 Message started by raydawg on 06/28/18 at 09:08:59 |
|
Title: New SCJ.......... Post by raydawg on 06/28/18 at 09:08:59 I won't pretend I am very knowledgeable about it, I'm not...... All I can say is I believe the court should be diverse, and slow to act. By that I mean, and I believe this is where they seem to have become just another extension of any given party.....where NONE should exist, as the constitution was written for ALL of us, NOT for one party platforms. OK, I am wading in too deep already, almost over my head, but I believe they need to be very narrow, and strict, in their rulings, and rule according to written constitutional amendments, it should example as CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE...... the EXACT wording of the law, NOT, a interpretation of what a jurist thinks the/a founding father(s) "might" have meant. Think about it, the founder(s) had no knowledge of current affairs, none... They wrote with experiences of "failed" governing practices, and scripted ways to "hopefully" circumvent those very problems, into our Constitution. So, to build your premise on speculation is NOT sound footing to begin with, and you want our HIGHEST court to rule as such? That is a fallacy ripe for failure of our democracy. If the amendments need tweaking, adjusting, etc, to accommodate the "times" then that is done legislatively, where we ALL get a say (hopefully) by who we elected to represent us. If you are against the current leaders, and administrations, at ANY time, because of your beliefs, and you think that is cause enough to "rebel." I suggest you find another country that mirrors your beliefs, for if everyone adopted YOUR reasoning, then mankind shall NEVER, know societal peace.....ever. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ..........y Post by justin_o_guy2 on 06/28/18 at 10:34:52 Diversity isn't a goal. It's nothing of value in and of itself. If they are all pink with purple dots, who cares? All they need to do is Read the constitution and apply it. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by LostArtist on 06/28/18 at 11:14:05 6C7F677A7F69791E0 wrote:
for the most part, well said. however, when you say "They wrote with experiences of "failed" governing practices, and scripted ways to "hopefully" circumvent those very problems, into our Constitution. " with the "hopefully" well, that in and of itself IS speculation isn't it? Like on the founders' part, they were speculating that those problems would be circumvented by their words right? my only concern with the new SCOTUS, I totally understand and accept that it'll be conservative, that is what it is, the issue I have is with Mitch McConnell's total hypocrisy on this issue, it is an Election year, he held up Merrick Garland's confirmation because it was an election year and he thought the people, US, had a right to be heard, Mitch should follow that same rule HE made up. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ..........y Post by raydawg on 06/28/18 at 13:06:27 5A454344595E6F5F6F57454902300 wrote:
Jog, folks see things differently, that is a verifiable fact. When I say diversity, the context is in having folks with different experiences, the ability to offer up their take/understanding, as it appears to them, nothing more. Indeed, the final outcome/judgement, should be that which come the closes to meeting the "known" meaning, of the amendment, WITHOUT having to make it fit...... I will give you a personal example how folks view/hear thing, and interpret it differently. Also, its a timely story as my sober birthday is just around the corner ;D This involves me, and my wife. I've no doubt she loves me. I can honestly say she did more to make our union work than I ever did, not even close. I can say I believe she was the better parent. Now, back when my sobriety was only a few years successful, I thought I was pretty smart. I gave myself WAY TOO MUCH CREDIT, for having kicked this bad habit out of my life.... I remember going out to dinner with her back then, I use to ALWAYS use that event to justify my drinking, like socially......nut'n wrong with that, right? Well, she would often ask if it would bother me, if she ordered a drink? I remember wanting to lash out at her with accusations that, WTF, you think I am that F'N weak that you having a drink will send me back out of control.....??? IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK OF ME....IS IT? I would have, prolly, if we had been alone, but being in public, I said, "No, of course not." as I seethed inside me...... It took a few more years of self reflecting and processing, to come to a different "interpretation" of what she said, and what it REALLY meant. Thus, she was saying this, now in my words, which I can understand.... "Honey, I would like to try a glass of this wine, it sounds so good, however, if it makes you feel uncomfortable, in anyway, I needn't order it." So Jog, you see, she cared about ME....FIRST, than she thought of her own enjoyment. Yet I went 180 degrees with understanding the "intent" because of my OWN BIAS..... Does this make any sense now, in why I believe folks with different life experiences bring MORE to the equation that 9 folks like me drinking and running around drunk in speedos? ;) |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by raydawg on 06/28/18 at 13:08:43 however, when you say "They wrote with experiences of "failed" governing practices, and scripted ways to "hopefully" circumvent those very problems, into our Constitution. " with the "hopefully" well, that in and of itself IS speculation isn't it? Like on the founders' part, they were speculating that those problems would be circumvented by their words right? Yes, absolutely....... certainty, future wise, is never attainable. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by WebsterMark on 06/30/18 at 04:39:03 The Supreme Court has too much perceived power as it is. The idea one person can be the swing vote that "cements" a right into permanent existence is ridiculous. Really, the idea that we have a balance of powers is a superficial explanation. Congress is ultimately the top and has the final say, but it today's world, we've got this idea the court does. Congress can re-write laws and are ultimately answerable to the People every two years. They can take the lead on Amendments and drive State participation, they can vote to object Court nominees or even impeach a President. Actually, Congress could impeach a President for nominating judges they don't like. They can impeach a President for any reason. That's why the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is used. Point is, I'm thrilled Trump gets another shot at this and maybe one more before 2020. I'd love Roe v Wade to get overturned but I doubt it will. At best, we'll get changes that allow individual states to implement common sense restrictions. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by raydawg on 06/30/18 at 08:59:26 Common sense restrictions seems plausible given that birth control allows for so many options nowadays. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by WebsterMark on 07/03/18 at 05:31:57 The Supreme Court has too much perceived power as it is. The idea one person can be the swing vote that "cements" a right into permanent existence is ridiculous. Really, the idea that we have a balance of powers is a superficial explanation. Congress is ultimately the top and has the final say, but it today's world, we've got this idea the court does. Congress can re-write laws and are ultimately answerable to the People every two years. They can take the lead on Amendments and drive State participation, they can vote to object Court nominees or even impeach a President. Actually, Congress could impeach a President for nominating judges they don't like. They can impeach a President for any reason. That's why the phrase high crimes and misdemeanors is used. Circling back to this: why do we think the Court is the final arbitrator? We are, aren't we? Or has the media, which wears the same jerseys as the liberals, purposely or sub-consciously forced the message that once the Court rules on something, that's it, it's final. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by raydawg on 07/03/18 at 08:44:47 7E4C4B5A5D4C5B64485B42290 wrote:
Ok Web, let say then, they, folks here legally, one way or the other, muster the power to change laws/requirements of lets say, you needn't be a naturalized citizen to be president, etc.... You cool with that? |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by WebsterMark on 07/03/18 at 09:01:09 if it followed the prescribed procedure, wouldn't matter if I was cool with it or not, that's the new law of the land. ....and that scenario you described will likely happen within 20 years I'd say. Like I've said, the Right is winning the battle now. General Trump will keep the enemy at bay until 2020 or 2024, but beyond that, I can't say. The Left will ultimately win the war. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by raydawg on 07/03/18 at 09:30:08 7A484F5E59485F604C5F462D0 wrote:
I agree, biblically....... It is a precursor to the new world order. Folks pushing for this enlightening have no idea its their own demise they sponsor. |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by LostArtist on 07/03/18 at 14:26:19 576562737465724D61726B000 wrote:
Dude, the court upholds the rule of law, the constitution, so that illegal laws can be challenged BY US the PEOPLE and rejected. we are not a nation ruled by men, we are ruled by law, those laws are VETTED via the courts. and no, it's not final if it's ruled on by the court, plenty of court decisions have later been overturned in later courts, or by constitutional amendments |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by LostArtist on 07/03/18 at 14:29:42 132126373021360925362F440 wrote:
"General Trump"..... |
|
Title: Re: New SCJ.......... Post by verslagen1 on 07/03/18 at 14:35:49 2E0D11162310160B1116620 wrote:
"General Trump"..... [/quote] He's a five a$$ed general. ;D |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |