I don't understand? 7 of 9 justices were appointed by Republicans and they voted in Bush bringing down the Left's tyranny. Why give 'em the finger?Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Printable View
I don't understand? 7 of 9 justices were appointed by Republicans and they voted in Bush bringing down the Left's tyranny. Why give 'em the finger?Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
Next they will ban desecration of money, and those 50c penny stretching/imprinting machines will be a thing of the past.
Sure, of course you don't understand, but I'll take the bait anyway. Are you suggesting a republican pick automatically equals an originalist? Republicans have had about 12 justices picked for the Supreme Court in the last 50 years I think it is. Only about 3 of them turned out to be originalists. So, just because a republican picked 'em, isn't a guarantee they'll respect the meaning of the Constitution and not twist it for partisan gain. They're going as far now as citing international law in their rulings. It was Richard Nixon that appointed Harry Blackmum who led the Roe v. Wade decision after all. Some picks were last resorts after the real ones they wanted were 'borked' like yeah, Reagan's Robert Bork pick. Instead of Bork, we got Kennedy. So, it's not cut and dry as you're trying to portray it. Now, had all 7 justices appointed by republicans turned out to be originalists in their judicial philosophy (something you left out and chose only to mention their appointment by a republican as if that's a guarantee of something), I wouldn't be having a problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ballwarts
As for your being sore (haven't heard a 'SELECTED NOT ELECTED' snipe in a long while here) about the Supremes overturning an activist Florida Supreme Court, I suppose it all depends on what the meaning of 'seven-days' is, eh? And I thought 3 other recounts later showed he won anyway even if the seven-day limit would've been extended despite Florida law, no? Them, as you say having "voted in Bush" isn't a, "Hey, they threw you a bone on that decision, so you should like every other decision!!" Nope sorry, Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, Kennedy, and even O'Connor I'd love to see replaced.
Anything else, Doc?
*runs in room*
BURN THE CONSTITUTION!
*runs out*
Well as long as they don't ban taking a shit on the american public and the concept of freedom I'm ok. I plan on running for office when I'm in my 40s. If a coke head from Texas can do it, I think I can too.
Yeah, I never really gave a darn about the ruling anyway (Bush didn't seem so bad in 2000)*. Like Tom Landry said, you should never really be concerned about a foul call, you should be concerend about scoring enough points that a foul dosen't matter.
And when you say originalist, do you mean original intent or original meaning; either way with the atmosphere in the 1780's of just coming out of Rebellion, I think that detroying the government's symbol as a sign of protest may not be agreeable, but would be aceptable.
Originalists? Horseshit. Just because the justices they elect decided to vote based on the law and their interpretation of the Constitution (which is the duty of the Supreme Court, as you know) instead of the partisan views of the party that elected them does NOT make them bad justices. This is why the seperation of powers is so important. We don't need political puppets in the Supreme Court, we need judges.Quote:
Originally Posted by NightWolve
There is NOTHING wrong with researching and citing international law when making a decision on US law. The rest of the world uses US law for precedent all the time and I don't hear you crying over that. In fact, if you scrape just below the surface you'll find 90% of American Law is lifted straight out of English Common Law. It's an global community now, and I'm glad the justices have realized that. They're the last people we need clinging to the cultural isolationism we had in the 50s and is starting to creep back in.
We don't need 'originalists', this isn't 1787. We need justices who respect the articles of the Constitution, yet understand that they must be ready to adapt to the changing world.
Anyway, as to the whole flag-burning issue; we need to strike this down immediately. This is only symptomatic of the growing idiotic nationalism that's spreading like a cancer across this country. Nothing good has ever come from rampant ignorant nationalism, just ask Germany.
lol, oh really? adapt to a changing world? Like banning guns or free speech? No, some things don't need to just be respected. Some things need to be unchangeable and untouchable, everything else be damned.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
I agree with this. As cool as the Nazi's were, fascism isn't pretty on Americans. It would be all the drama minus cool clothes and nice tanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
http://www.esquilax.com/flag/justabill.gif
There's a lot of flag burners who have got too much freedom
I wanna make it legal for policemen to beat 'em
'Cause there's limits to our liberties
At least, I hope and pray that there are
'Cause those liberal freaks to too far
Well, I'm not sure if need originalists judges or not, but after reading the federalist papers, I am sure that both the framers of the Constitution and the voting public of that day would not agree with what the right wing wants today.