shape
carat
color
clarity

The Supreme Court Travesty

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
AGBF|1478316752|4093933 said:
Do you realize what you are actually saying here, redwood? Rather than to address the issue I raised, which is a Constitutional one, you change the subject. You change the subject to discuss why a renegade with with no regard for the law whatsoever (Trump) has gotten support.

The issue is not "are people in the United States unhappy?" or "would people in the United States like to change some Supreme Court decisions?". Maybe sometimes The Supreme Court will make decisions that are just but not popular. You are writing as if the Supreme Court has to make everyone happy or else it is not doing its job. You are writing as if the fact that a demagogue like Donald Trump can gain support means that The Supreme Court is interpreting The Constitution incorrectly.

The fact that Donald Trump has support does not mean that The Supreme Court has erred. The fact that people may be unhappy with some decisions does not mean that The Supreme Court is a failed institution. However, when a branch of government ceases to do what The Constitution calls upon it to do-in the case of the Senate to confirm the requisite number of members of the Supreme Court-then required by law-that institution has failed. Therefore, at this point, the Legislative Branch has failed.

AGBF

Oh Deb. Come on. Who knows what the Senate will actually do after the election? But did you really think they would appoint someone in an election year with the untimely death of Scalia? They are posturing at this point and if Hillary is elected and they continue the country will let them know next election round. I am tired of worrying at this point.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
Tekate|1478354441|4093997 said:
redwood66|1478291368|4093810 said:
Tekate|1478290664|4093800 said:
redwood66|1478277192|4093686 said:
I want to talk about the other side for a minute. Do you realize that one of the reasons Trump has as much support as he does is precisely for this reason? Much of America does not see the Constitution as a living document and will hold their nose and vote for him. Who are the progressives to cast that much of the population aside to further their agenda? I am a firm believer in states' rights and that the federal government or SCOTUS (for the most part) should not step into that relationship between a state and it's residents. If I lived in one of the swing states it is likely that I would have voted for Trump for this reason. What works (supposedly) for New York or San Francisco does not necessarily work in rural America. And we do not trust a progressive to mind the store so to speak. All I can hope for if Hillary is elected is that she is so tainted that she gets nothing done.


So back at you :) who are the conservatives to throw back at progressives their view? It isn't MUCH of America, it's probably less than 1/2 of America. All I can hope for is that if Trump is elected he spends all his time in court with his bankruptcies, rape cases, lying and being sued for non payment, so much so that he is impeached.. because I don't expected he will get anything done period even if he were an angel, he's tooooo tainted.

Which is why I support states' rights. You live in a state that works for you and I will live in one that works for me. I fear a SCOTUS that has activist judges making rulings for my state residents that do not agree.

If I allow you 60% then that is 40% of voting Americans that are conservative. There are 146,311,000 Americans registered to vote. That is 58,524,400 that you say is not MUCH of America.

http://www.statisticbrain.com/voting-statistics/

As I said, less than 1/2 of America. We all learn when we are kids, majority rules. Don't like it, don't play in the sandbox.

I used a fake number of conservatives for you because you said less than half. The number of registered voters is correct. That does not mean that 60% are liberals either.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
Tekate|1478354929|4094002 said:
redwood66|1478311945|4093900 said:
E B|1478282265|4093725 said:
redwood66|1478281645|4093722 said:
E B|1478281129|4093713 said:
Trump's "protecting" the Constitution.

I don't think it is so much trusting him as not trusting her at all.

So it hinges on an overall "feeling" about her, despite actual proof from the man's own mouth about wanting to undermine multiple parts of the Constitution. We can call it a feeling, but I suspect it's largely ignorance-- and I don't mean that in a mean way. Not necessarily the willful kind. Going with a "feeling" over proof is usually buoyed by this. And that's unfortunate.

Like I said, if it's Roe v. Wade, gay marriage, (falsehoods about) the 2nd Amendment, one should just say so, but to claim he'll better protect the Constitution flies in the face of reason.

Here is an interesting take on Hillary's stance on the 2nd Amendment.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/05/25/hillary-clintons-second-amendment

Excerpt:

On the same day that Trump addressed the NRA, one of Clinton's policy advisers told Bloomberg Politics the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee disagrees with District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 decision in which the Supreme Court overturned the District's handgun ban. The adviser, Maya Harris, said, "Clinton believes Heller was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft commonsense laws to keep their residents safe."

Since Heller is the first case in which the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to armed self-defense, that statement is roughly equivalent to saying, "Trump believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided in that cities and states should have the power to craft commonsense laws to protect unborn children." Just as supporters of abortion rights would be justified in reading the latter statement as a rejection of their position, supporters of gun rights are justified in reading Clinton's statement as a rejection of theirs.


So, how often as Americans, has our government armed against us? I have a narrower view of the 2nd amendment also. Do we think every day our government is going to break down our door and kill us in the name of liberalism? I do think it's possible with the Donald as president anarchy could happen, and then I would want a gun, sort of like if the gun lovers are coming after me because I"m liberal, time to get me a AR 15! seriously though I don't think an argument that Clinton or any president that would like to put more checks and balances in gun ownership is going to take 'guns away'.

The President of the United States is in charge of the militia, did you know that?

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/87/commander-of-militia

Why would "gun lovers" come after you because you are liberal? The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens. Its not checks and balances that she is talking about when she says Heller was decided wrongly. Its the finding that it is an "individual" right by SCOTUS.
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
redwood66|1478357197|4094015 said:
AGBF|1478316752|4093933 said:
Do you realize what you are actually saying here, redwood? Rather than to address the issue I raised, which is a Constitutional one, you change the subject. You change the subject to discuss why a renegade with with no regard for the law whatsoever (Trump) has gotten support.

The issue is not "are people in the United States unhappy?" or "would people in the United States like to change some Supreme Court decisions?". Maybe sometimes The Supreme Court will make decisions that are just but not popular. You are writing as if the Supreme Court has to make everyone happy or else it is not doing its job. You are writing as if the fact that a demagogue like Donald Trump can gain support means that The Supreme Court is interpreting The Constitution incorrectly.

The fact that Donald Trump has support does not mean that The Supreme Court has erred. The fact that people may be unhappy with some decisions does not mean that The Supreme Court is a failed institution. However, when a branch of government ceases to do what The Constitution calls upon it to do-in the case of the Senate to confirm the requisite number of members of the Supreme Court-then required by law-that institution has failed. Therefore, at this point, the Legislative Branch has failed.

AGBF

Oh Deb. Come on. Who knows what the Senate will actually do after the election? But did you really think they would appoint someone in an election year with the untimely death of Scalia? They are posturing at this point and if Hillary is elected and they continue the country will let them know next election round. I am tired of worrying at this point.

Redwood, are you saying that (the republican branch of) the Senate isn't serious when they say they will refuse to confirm anyone Clinton puts forward should she win? That they are not serious about letting the SC "die a natural death?" It's just posturing? Whose votes are they trying to attract with posturing that calls for dismantling a branch of the US government that their beloved (I thought) Constitution firmly establishes?

I don't know anyone can be a patriotic American and NOT be worried by this!
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
Maria D|1478368344|4094131 said:
redwood66|1478357197|4094015 said:
AGBF|1478316752|4093933 said:
Do you realize what you are actually saying here, redwood? Rather than to address the issue I raised, which is a Constitutional one, you change the subject. You change the subject to discuss why a renegade with with no regard for the law whatsoever (Trump) has gotten support.

The issue is not "are people in the United States unhappy?" or "would people in the United States like to change some Supreme Court decisions?". Maybe sometimes The Supreme Court will make decisions that are just but not popular. You are writing as if the Supreme Court has to make everyone happy or else it is not doing its job. You are writing as if the fact that a demagogue like Donald Trump can gain support means that The Supreme Court is interpreting The Constitution incorrectly.

The fact that Donald Trump has support does not mean that The Supreme Court has erred. The fact that people may be unhappy with some decisions does not mean that The Supreme Court is a failed institution. However, when a branch of government ceases to do what The Constitution calls upon it to do-in the case of the Senate to confirm the requisite number of members of the Supreme Court-then required by law-that institution has failed. Therefore, at this point, the Legislative Branch has failed.

AGBF

Oh Deb. Come on. Who knows what the Senate will actually do after the election? But did you really think they would appoint someone in an election year with the untimely death of Scalia? They are posturing at this point and if Hillary is elected and they continue the country will let them know next election round. I am tired of worrying at this point.

Redwood, are you saying that (the republican branch of) the Senate isn't serious when they say they will refuse to confirm anyone Clinton puts forward should she win? That they are not serious about letting the SC "die a natural death?" It's just posturing? Whose votes are they trying to attract with posturing that calls for dismantling a branch of the US government that their beloved (I thought) Constitution firmly establishes?

I don't know anyone can be a patriotic American and NOT be worried by this!

I agree with Maria that it is very serious to threaten to emasculate one of the three branches of government which the Constitution set up to insure the balance of power. And not only have The Republicans threatened to do so after the elections, they have already done so. They had no right whatsoever to hold up the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. You are posting as if there should have been some grace period after Justice Scalia's death before another justice was appointed, but it should have been done immediately. As soon as President Obama chose a candidate the Senate should have held hearings to advise and consent as is its duty. Whether it was an election year or not did not relieve the Senate of its Constitutional duty. Do you think Justice Scalia would have approved of a Senate that flouted the Constitution?

AGBF
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
If either of you believe that the Dems would have confirmed a nominee of a Republican President in an election year if Ginsburg had died then I have a bridge to sell you.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
redwood66|1478370173|4094151 said:
If either of you believe that the Dems would have confirmed a nominee of a Republican President in an election year if Ginsburg had died then I have a bridge to sell you.

Wow. I hope that The Democrats would not have been so low as to refuse to meet with a candidate nominated for The Supreme Court by The President of The United States, even if they voted against his confirmation. I sure hope that you are wrong, redwood. I hate to think that 100% of the Senate doesn't care about the Constitution.

Deb
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
AGBF|1478370733|4094155 said:
redwood66|1478370173|4094151 said:
If either of you believe that the Dems would have confirmed a nominee of a Republican President in an election year if Ginsburg had died then I have a bridge to sell you.

Wow. I hope that The Democrats would not have been so low as to refuse to meet with a candidate nominated for The Supreme Court by The President of The United States, even if they voted against his confirmation. I sure hope that you are wrong, redwood. I hate to think that 100% of the Senate doesn't care about the Constitution.

Deb

I don't think very many politicians care much about anything more than being reelected and party politics. All flavors included. This is how jaded I am at this point.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
redwood66|1478371236|4094159 said:
AGBF|1478370733|4094155 said:
redwood66|1478370173|4094151 said:
If either of you believe that the Dems would have confirmed a nominee of a Republican President in an election year if Ginsburg had died then I have a bridge to sell you.

Wow. I hope that The Democrats would not have been so low as to refuse to meet with a candidate nominated for The Supreme Court by The President of The United States, even if they voted against his confirmation. I sure hope that you are wrong, redwood. I hate to think that 100% of the Senate doesn't care about the Constitution.

Deb

I don't think very many politicians care much about anything more than being reelected and party politics. All flavors included. This is how jaded I am at this point.

I hate to think I am having an especially good day today, redwood, but maybe I am. I seem to be less jaded than you today, at least. (And I had a night full of nightmares in which I protested I didn't even want to get married this time around and I had to push people in wheelchairs down corridors.)

I think you need some comfort!
Big hug,
(((redwood)))
Deb

hotcocoa.jpeg
 

Maria D

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 24, 2003
Messages
1,948
redwood66|1478370173|4094151 said:
If either of you believe that the Dems would have confirmed a nominee of a Republican President in an election year if Ginsburg had died then I have a bridge to sell you.

The difference between us is that if the democrats had pulled the same stunt I would be just as appalled and would still have written my representative expressing my disgust. (I'd like to think that my letter to Sen. Susan Collins was one of the many that persuaded her to meet with Garland.)

I am an American before I am a democrat.
 

redwood66

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Aug 22, 2012
Messages
7,329
Thank you Deb. It is appreciated. I am a little unnerved by your nightmare but maybe you should volunteer at the hospital to push people in wheelchairs down the hallway? :lol: Glad you decided to get married anyway.

Maria - why would you assume I am not appalled? I am always realistic about politicians. Just because I don't bang out irritations on my keyboard does not mean I am not involved. I have written many a letter to my state and local representatives. I have also met with them in person and they know me by name.
 

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,143
While warning of the dangers that attend a Republican victory and their threats of dismantling The Supreme Court should Hillary Clinton become President of the United States, "The New York Times" also reminds us of the inspiration given us by Vice-President Al Gore. Al Gore, despite his own beliefs, bowed to his belief in the Constitutional right of The Supreme Court to decide the Presidential Election of the year 2000. I don't know of anyone else who has been that gracious and principled. This is from an editorial in today's newspaper.

"Mr. Gore’s concession that night still stands as the most powerful reaffirmation in modern times of the Supreme Court’s unique and fragile role in the American system of government. Millions of people were furious at the justices’ decision in Bush v. Gore — many believed it was the result not of legal reasoning but of rank partisanship — and yet virtually everyone followed Mr. Gore’s selfless lead, accepted the court as the final arbiter of the dispute, and moved on. There were no riots in the streets, no attempted coups, no 'Second Amendment solutions.' There was, instead, a peaceful transfer of power: the hallmark of a civil society operating under the rule of law."

Link...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/opinion/a-coup-against-the-supreme-court.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region&_r=0

AGBF
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top