The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[McDad]

I want cases judged by constitutionality. I don't want any zealots of any sort

is the constitution a moderate document in your opinion?

 

[jmacvols1]

....corrupt and evil.........and stupid

 

[McDad]

....corrupt and evil.........and stupid

This is the way our government is designed to work. If justices are corrupt, then they need to be impeached. It will be a political process but that is the way it has to be.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

I have reservations about rulings where one Justice having a little too much coffee that morning can swing a whole SCOTUS decision. As a general observation when you have a mostly majority opinion then that lends itself to being pretty solid regardless of whatever the leanings of the court may be.

Yes, of course. Each case is different. Many are "no brainers" and should be one sided.

 

[jmacvols1]

This is the way our government is designed to work. If justices are corrupt, then they need to be impeached. It will be a political process but that is the way it has to be.

no, justice means fairness and law applied equally and there are no impeachment articles presented here against the liberal justices who took money and should have recused themselves from cases. This is purely political temper tantrum not getting her way. When the liberals dominated the court conservatives abided by the law. Now the tables are flipped and the Dems cannot handle it

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

is the constitution a moderate document in your opinion?

No. A living document

 

[hog88]

no, justice means fairness and law applied equally and there are no impeachment articles presented here against the liberal justices who took money and should have recused themselves from cases. This is purely political temper tantrum not getting her way. When the liberals dominated the courts conservatives abided by the law, not the tables are flipped and the Dems cannot handle it

Impeachment is a political process so justice and law aren't really applicable.

 

[hog88]

No. A living document

It's not a living document, it's an amendable document.

 

[jmacvols1]

Impeachment is a political process so justice and law aren't really applicable.

impeachment should only be brought about when a gov't official breaks the law, commits a criminal act not simply because one side does not get the things it wants.

 

[hog88]

impeachment should only be brought about when a gov't official breaks the law, commits a criminal act not simply because one side does not get the things it wants.

Should? Maybe. But that's not the way it is.

 

[jmacvols1]

Should? Maybe. But that's not the way it is.

It proves to me how petty and corrupt the Dems are....don't like your opponent then jail them with false charges and impeach them for no good reason.

 

[Septic]

impeachment should only be brought about when a gov't official breaks the law, commits a criminal act not simply because one side does not get the things it wants.

 

[Septic]

no, justice means fairness and law applied equally and there are no impeachment articles presented here against the liberal justices who took money and should have recused themselves from cases. This is purely political temper tantrum not getting her way. When the liberals dominated the court conservatives abided by the law. Now the tables are flipped and the Dems cannot handle it

I'm concerned that if you ever happen to stumble into a situation where your world isn't viewed through red tinted lenses, your head might explode.

 

[Vol423]

No. A living document

Liberals throw that term out because that was the catchphrase drilled into them in school. Had they actually studied in school, they would have learned that the "living document" terminology doesn't mean the Constitution is whatever popular opinion of the day wants it to be. It means there are specific prescribed rules by which the Constitution can be amended. Unfortunately for the radical left, they are nowhere close to representing the majority necessary to pass such amendments.

 

[85SugarVol]

I agree with your take here. See, I think we would be best served having mostly moderates in the SC. Nothing wrong with being a little more conservative and/or a little more liberal. Having an entire court so far from center wasn't the intention. Majority is one thing. 5-4 rulings should be more frequent

We don’t have an entire Court so far from center though.

- We have 2 (Roberts & Kav) that are centerline Moderates.
- We have a 3rd (Barrett) that is under +1
- We have a 4th (Gorsuch) that is right at +1

That is half the Court that is within the bounds of reasonableness.

Now, we do have 4 (Kagan/Jax & Thomas/Alito) that are pretty partisan.

And we have 1 crazy fuggin lady in Sotomayor that is off the reservation.

 

[McDad]

No. A living document

It , the Constitution, isn't a moderate document.

But you want it judged moderately?

Do you see any incongruity with that?

 

[Sandman 423]

....corrupt and evil.........and stupid

How long before MTG does the same to Sotomayor?

 

[McDad]

impeachment should only be brought about when a gov't official breaks the law, commits a criminal act not simply because one side does not get the things it wants.

This is the ideal.

But it doesn't work like that in application.

This, like most things our elected representatives handled, we will have to hope they judge the case impartially and justly.

 

[McDad]

It proves to me how petty and corrupt the Dems are....don't like your opponent then jail them with false charges and impeach them for no good reason.

The good reason or lack thereof should come out in the process.

 

[Sandman 423]

It proves to me how petty and corrupt the Dems are....don't like your opponent then jail them with false charges and impeach them for no good reason.

They shouldn't be receiving "gifts" (bribes) and I have no issue at all with her going after them for it. Unfortunately, I think they are allowed to though.

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

It isn't moderate.

But you want it judged moderately?

Do you see any incongruity with that?

No. There's a clear distinction between the members' ideology and the Constitution itself. Some parts of the Constitution should never change. The problem is with state distinction. I'm a proponent of states having the most control, but there are instances when federal law should always have precedent, and most of the time it is in specific instances

 

[Sandman 423]

No. There's a clear distinction between the members' ideology and the Constitution itself. Some parts of the Constitution should never change. The problem is with state distinction. I'm a proponent of states having the most control, but there are instances when federal law should always have precedent, and most of the time it is in specific instances

Yep, Roads and defense.

 

[McDad]

No. There's a clear distinction between the members' ideology and the Constitution itself. Some parts of the Constitution should never change. The problem is with state distinction. I'm a proponent of states having the most control, but there are instances when federal law should always have precedent, and most of the time it is in specific instances

Where do you see it never needing to change and where should federal law take precedent in changing the constitution?

How do you delineate between the two?

 

[CobbVol]

....corrupt and evil.........and stupid

This is called a ...

 

[BernardKingGOAT]

Where do you see it never needing to change and where should federal law take precedent and changing the constitution?

How do you delineate between the two?

Isn't that what should be expected of the highest court in the land? To correct cultural rulings?

That will send you over the edge.

Hey, when are you going to be in the Tahoe area? I know you said August but I didn't absorb the dates. We're going out from Aug12-26.