Judge Scalia RIP

[Kutnupe14]

Not balance for the sake of balance.

Yes, balance for the sake balance.....If one assumes both positions have merit. And we both know that, by default, all liberal positions are wrong, on INGO.

 

[pudly]

Yeah. It's not like we need a Clarance Thomas for every Wise Latina Woman. But that's how it turns out because the SCOTUS has too much power. Every administration wants to stack the court with it's own ideology. Even Scalia wasn't unbiased.

He was known as a strong Originalist. Can't ask for anything more than that.

 

[Restroyer]

I hope they ship Merrick a free NRA patch or send him a donation letter for consolation. Seriously though, just because the NRA says no we have to automatically not consider him? They are a lobby. Or are we not allowed to go against the NRA hivemind? How about they not presume something about a nominee who hasn't been able to prove something on the bench because the opportunity hasn't presented itself yet? Let the senators ask the questions and make a decision based off the answer.

You don't think he would lie to the Senate? Remember he's a judge which is a combination of lawyer plus politician. Most deceitful combo I can think of.

 

[Restroyer]

Yes, balance for the sake balance.....If one assumes both positions have merit. And we both know that, by default, all liberal positions are wrong, on INGO.

You have your balance now with 4 to 4 judges. Add the 9th judge and there's no balance regardless of which side of the fence you are on, but that's the way the system is.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So is this the plan? Either confirm Garland, who would overturn Heller.... or let Clinton pick someone worse. Those are the options.

The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

 

[Restroyer]

So is this the plan? Either confirm Garland, who would overturn Heller.... or let Clinton pick someone worse. Those are the options.

The 'Moderates' Are Not So Moderate: Merrick Garland

Clinton has to win first. I know several of you quitters want to just hand her the crown, but she's no lock to win it. You need to stop watching so much MSNBC and their BS polls. Don't be brainwashed by the media telling you that the latest poll shows her as the winner. Until the final vote is tallied in November the competition is still open.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Who in the Hell would want a Constitutional originalist?

Kut (hopes you chose the wrong word)

So, no more votes for women?

Ah geeze...yeah, exactly.

I'm long past tired of the "living, breathing document" types.

 

[Lowe0]

Ah geeze...yeah, exactly.

I'm long past tired of the "living, breathing document" types.

You said "the day its ink dried."

 

[Blackhawk2001]

So, no more votes for women?

Where in the Constitution does it specify that only men shall have the vote?

 

[Kutnupe14]

He was known as a strong Originalist. Can't ask for anything more than that.

So landed white men should only have the ability to vote?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yes, balance for the sake balance.....If one assumes both positions have merit. And we both know that, by default, all liberal positions are wrong, on INGO.

You need to take a step backward as you are buying into the foundation of the problem at hand: It is NOT the function of the Supreme Court to be a partisan institution. Its proper function is to determine the constitutional compatibility of laws and actions taken by the government, so assuming that either position having merit is a legitimate issue is fundamentally flawed. In most (not all) cases, the conservative position is that of adhering to the Constitution. That is the function of the court--to adhere to the Constitution, not to, for partisan reasons, arbitrarily decide whether to adhere to the Constitution or not.

So landed white men should only have the ability to vote?

Stop being deliberately obtuse. You are, or at least should be, aware that there is a difference between procedural provision of the Constitution and matters of principle, particularly as established in its treatment of our natural rights.

 

[pudly]

So, no more votes for women?

So landed white men should only have the ability to vote?

Why is it not surprising that two leftists in this discussion must have slept through the part in class where they covered how the Constitution is amended and that that Constitutionally-defined process was used to give women and blacks the right to vote. That amendment process is an original part of the Constitution. The "living Constitution" is a corrupt practice used to bypass Constitutional protections without having to go through the actual process of getting buy-in from America.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Stop being deliberately obtuse. You are, or at least should be, aware that there is a difference between procedural provision of the Constitution and matters of principle, particularly as established in its treatment of our natural rights.

Meh...this is INGO. It's what people do on here. My posting history on here should clear up what was meant but folks like to pick nits and no nit is too small to pick, for some.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You need to take a step backward as you are buying into the foundation of the problem at hand: It is NOT the function of the Supreme Court to be a partisan institution. Its proper function is to determine the constitutional compatibility of laws and actions taken by the government, so assuming that either position having merit is a legitimate issue is fundamentally flawed. In most (not all) cases, the conservative position is that of adhering to the Constitution. That is the function of the court--to adhere to the Constitution, not to, for partisan reasons, arbitrarily decide whether to adhere to the Constitution or not.



Stop being deliberately obtuse. You are, or at least should be, aware that there is a difference between procedural provision of the Constitution and matters of principle, particularly as established in its treatment of our natural rights.

Surely, you don't deny that the Constitution, as originally put forth by the founders, denied natural rights to larges segments of the populace? ...and we won't even get into the second amendment, and the BoRs

 

[IndyDave1776]

Surely, you don't deny that the Constitution, as originally put forth by the founders, denied natural rights to larges segments of the populace? ...and we won't even get into the second amendment, and the BoRs

In many regards, our founders were the product of their time. They did see this element of bias and accounted for it by providing for making amendments as needed, which are, by design, difficult but far from impossible to implement. Through this process, your objections have been addressed in the intervening two centuries. This in no way stands to justify 9 people deciding that the 'law' is WTF-ever they say it is, Constitution be damned, which is exactly what several judges now sitting on the court are in the habit of doing, as did a number of their predecessors, particularly from among those appointed during the FD Roosevelt administration or thereafter.

 

[actaeon277]

Why is it not surprising that two leftists in this discussion must have slept through the part in class where they covered how the Constitution is amended and that that Constitutionally-defined process was used to give women and blacks the right to vote. That amendment process is an original part of the Constitution. The "living Constitution" is a corrupt practice used to bypass Constitutional protections without having to go through the actual process of getting buy-in from America.

 

[jamil]

So, no more votes for women?

If purple isn't implied that has to be one of the most intellectually dishonest statements I've ever seen on INGO. And we have Trumpers!

 

[Lowe0]

Where in the Constitution does it specify that only men shall have the vote?

The United States Constitution, or the constitutions of the individual states? It was left to the states at the time, and the states didn't grant women the right to vote. So, if the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution (incl. the 10th Amendment) as the Founders did at the time, and the individual State Supreme Courts do the same, then that's the end of women's suffrage.

 

[Lowe0]

Why is it not surprising that two leftists in this discussion must have slept through the part in class where they covered how the Constitution is amended and that that Constitutionally-defined process was used to give women and blacks the right to vote. That amendment process is an original part of the Constitution. The "living Constitution" is a corrupt practice used to bypass Constitutional protections without having to go through the actual process of getting buy-in from America.

Again, he specifically said "the day the ink dried." Not later. If it wasn't done by the Founders, then it's not expressly within their intent.

 

[printcraft]

Nobody is talking about taking away women and black voting rights.
Good Lord, even suggesting that make me wonder how you get by every day in life if you are serious.
Stop with the hyperbole.
It's about stopping someone that want to take away a Constitutionally guaranteed freedom given the chance.
All the others go away shortly after the 2nd is removed.
Where will your speech and voting rights be then?