Forums | MacLife

If we're lucky he may stick someone with PVS up there.

resedit wrote:

You guys want to legislate your liberal agenda - do so the right way, the constitution.
The supreme court isn't there for right or left politics - they are there to be constitutionalists, and rule based upon the constitution.

...so none of the so-called "conservatives" on the Court have any sort of political involvement?

Arguing that only "conservatism" is in line with 'correct' constitutional interpretation is just another political argument.  May I remind you again...how many of the current sitting justices were nominated by conservatives?

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

You guys want to legislate your liberal agenda - do so the right way, the constitution.
The supreme court isn't there for right or left politics - they are there to be constitutionalists, and rule based upon the constitution.

...so none of the so-called "conservatives" on the Court have any sort of political involvement?

Arguing that only "conservatism" is in line with 'correct' constitutional interpretation is just another political argument.  May I remind you again...how many of the current sitting justices were nominated by conservatives?

And some that were nominated by conservatives have made decisions conservatives screamed about, correct?

My point is nominating someone because of political affiliation is NOT what it is about.
You nominate someone because they have an incredible understanding of both the legal process and the constitution, and are willing to make decisions they don't agree with if that is what the law specifies.

Nominating someone who is "moderate" to "bridge the gap" is an indication that your view is they should legislate from the bench based upon political position, rather than interpret the constitution.

So in your opinion, if Bush nominates a "conservative" it will only be by coincidence?  Are you honestly asserting that only one side has an interest in politicizing this nomination?

Did you see the calls by many right-wing groups to "impeach" Kennedy because they didn't agree with his opinion in recent decisions?

Last edited by bratboy (2005-07-12 4:02 pm)

XYZ wrote:

Scalia will no longer be the alone in vocally vilifying gay Americans.

He used the phrase "so-called homosexual agenda."  So far as I know, that's it.  Yes, this weak epithet--which isn't even a description of gays--was inappropriate, but you're going overboard. 

As for the so-called theocracy we're supposedly on the verge of, what are you afraid of--that the Ten Commandments and nativity scenes during Christmas will bludgeon you into becoming a Christian?  I'm also an atheist, and frankly the controversy seems pretty overblown to me.  I seriously wonder whether acrimony has been heightened by the Court's intervention of the past few decades.

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Sure did - I don't know if their complaint was valid or not. If they were clearly contrary to what is in the constitution, they may have had a point.

...and in your estimation, there is only ever ONE "correct" interpretation of the words written in the Constitution?

It depends widely upon what the case is.
There have been some issues that I do feel the supreme court has screwed up on, as well as some I feel they got right.

Grey areas where the constitution is not clear should be left for legislature and the state.
The supreme court only exists to say something is constitutional or not. If the constitution is not explicit about it, then the state or federal needs to stand.

Abortion is one of those - the constitution does not address abortion, therefore the supreme court was wrong to say it does - and it should have been left to the state, which was the case before the ruling. In that case - they WERE wrong.

Since when has Clarence Thomas "pleased blacks"?

resedit wrote:

...but the courts often HAVE TO act because the legislature simply does not.

What has the supreme court ruled on for something for which there is no law?
It goes through many courts before it gets to the supreme court, and it only gets to the supreme court if it is a constitutional question.

Fine, but "courts" (as I said) are often faced with answering questions that legislatures have not.

The Supreme Court doesn't solicit cases, nor do they issue advisory opinions.

*edit*

...and you honestly place credence in calls to remove a justice from the court because of disagreements with their rulings?

Last edited by bratboy (2005-07-12 7:14 pm)

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

...and you honestly place credence in calls to remove a justice from the court because of disagreements with their rulings?

If his rulings are clearly contrary to his mandate - yes.
It should be done through a hearing process.

Does the constitution allow for it? I honestly don't know. If it doesn't, then that would need to be amended first.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Now what, in your expert opinion, is the the 'correct' interpretation of "during good behaviour?"

Sassy wrote:

Could someone who is or has been in the Congress be a nominee? A former Cabinet member? Interesting that.

As for theocracy, I think it would be a major mistake for any President to nominate a person so inclined. S/he would never be confirmed. Especially, for this particular President. He's under no incentive to do so, even if he wanted to. He's a lame duck and it would be a clear disaster for the next Republican candidate for President.

For now, with Republican popularity at an all time low, even the Republicans likely would prefer a moderate conservative, hoping for a chance at the next opening that may or may not happen.

Sure...Earl Warren was a governor.  O'Connor was a state senator at one point.

everlong205 wrote:

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

Sure did - I don't know if their complaint was valid or not. If they were clearly contrary to what is in the constitution, they may have had a point.

...and in your estimation, there is only ever ONE "correct" interpretation of the words written in the Constitution?

So then, with that in mind, you would acknowledge that there is no reason to deny the most right wing conservative ten steps beyond Bork to the bench on the grounds that they are extreme or "out of the mainstream", as, since there are infinite ways to interpret the words of the constitution, you cannot have an extremist judge on either side of the aisle.

Sure...Bush is in a position to nominate whomever he wants, as I see it.

The Supreme Court has seen numerous and varying ideologies concerning constitutional interpretation.  I would think one with strong ideological grounds would be preferential to one simply willing to further a political agenda.

As the republican party has certainly learned, you can't ALWAYS expect one of your justices to vote how you want.

Last edited by bratboy (2005-07-12 8:38 pm)

resedit wrote:

I wouldn't assume Bush will get his picks without a huge fight.
What is sad is the some democrat senator showed his true colours - saying bush had an opportunity to "bridge the gap" by putting someone in who is politically in the middle.

For the left - the supreme court is about politics and legislation - not constitutional interpretation.
And he made it quite clear.

You guys want to legislate your liberal agenda - do so the right way, the constitution.
The supreme court isn't there for right or left politics - they are there to be constitutionalists, and rule based upon the constitution.

mmmmmmmmm denial.

resedit wrote:

bratboy wrote:

As the republican party has certainly learned, you can't ALWAYS expect one of your justices to vote how you want.

They shouldn't vote how anyone "wants" - they should vote based upon what is in the constitution.
What the repubs and dems "want" should be put into the constitution if it is that important.

...and as I'm attempting to point out to you, what one thinks the Constitution 'means' is often different to different people.  Hell, lower courts can't often agree on previous decisions that the Supreme Court made!