McDad
I can't brain today; I has the dumb.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 53,951
- Likes
- 109,132
Yes, of course. Each case is different. Many are "no brainers" and should be one sided.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.
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 itThis 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 courts conservatives abided by the law, not the tables are flipped and the Dems cannot handle it
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
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.No. A living document
We don’t have an entire Court so far from center though.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
This is the ideal.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.
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.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.
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 instancesIt isn't moderate.
But you want it judged moderately?
Do you see any incongruity with that?
Yep, Roads and defense.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?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
Isn't that what should be expected of the highest court in the land? To correct cultural rulings?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?