Ted Cruz's Own Hometown is Embarrassed of Him

[Stickfight]

It's about the hypocrisy of folks who cry foul when SCOTUS rules against them and then rub it in the opposition's face when they get a favorable ruling. Citizens United comes to mind.

Do you agree with Heller?

My argument has always been about the standard.

That is my argument here, I agree with the standard described in the Constitution. You don't. I'm asking you what you would put in its place. Just saying "The Constitution" doesn't cut it and you know it.

What is the difference between me deciding what it Constitutional and SCOTUS? And where have I ever suggested or argued that SCOTUS needed to be replaced or an alternative method needed for determining Constitutionality?

Good job avoiding the question.

No, because by and large, I am in agreement with the authors and founders of this country. Moreover, I can separate personal issues from Constitutional ones. I may not like it, but I don't run around screaming about the injustice.

You run around calling things Unconstitutional that are not. Maybe in your world screaming = calling something Unconstitutional. I wouldn't know because I don't change the meaning of words.

Straw man.

No.

In which case a mentally disabled individual or a horse could qualify.

Where in the Constitution are the mentally disabled prevented from appointment to SCOTUS?

 

[88GT]

You're right, but if SCOTUS says it repeatedly, then it's true.

And we're back to this again?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled slavery was Constitutional, would it really be Constitutional?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled absolute prohibition on firearms was Constitutional, would it really be Constitutional?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled the only religion one could legal practice in American was Rastafarianism, would it really be Constitutional?

 

[Bummer]

Where in the Constitution are the mentally disabled prevented from appointment to SCOTUS?

If the wishy washy term "mentally disabled" means insane or in any other way mentally unable to fulfill the duties and obligations of the office, then Article III, Section 1.

The Justices of the Supreme Court hold office in good behavior. The office is most certainly not an unlimited lifetime appointment. Any Justice who is senile, insane, addicted to drugs, plus anything else that might constitute bad behavior, may be removed by Impeachment. There is a long history of this that goes back to the British law that all of the men who wrote the Constitution were quite aware of.

In that the Congress actually votes on the appointment of any Justice, the Congress has the authority to vote on the removal of any Justice. It can be done by a simple vote. This is not just something they have authority to do, it is their duty under their oath of office.

 

[cobber]

You're right, but if SCOTUS says it repeatedly, then it's true.

Not true. SCOTUS doesn't MAKE anything Constitutional. All it can do is opine as to whether something does or does not pass muster. And it can be, and has been, wrong in the past.

Quoth Bob Dylan, 'you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows...'

 

[CarmelHP]

In that the Congress actually votes on the appointment of any Justice, the Congress has the authority to vote on the removal of any Justice. It can be done by a simple vote. This is not just something they have authority to do, it is their duty under their oath of office.

Getting close, but not quite, federal judges are subject to impeachment by the House, and trial by the Senate under Art II, Sec. 4; conviction requires a two-thirds majority. 15 federal judges have been impeached since the Constitution was adopted.

Regarding Constitutionality, if the Supreme Court finds a law Constitutional, but later reverses itself, how could that law have been both Constitutional AND unConstitutional if the Constitution had not changed?

 

[cobber]

Regarding Constitutionality, if the Supreme Court finds a law Constitutional, but later reverses itself, how could that law have been both Constitutional AND unConstitutional if the Constitution had not changed?

That's like asking how many sides this thing has:

It was Constitutional, until it wasn't.

 

[buckstopshere]

And we're back to this again?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled slavery was Constitutional, would it really be Constitutional?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled absolute prohibition on firearms was Constitutional, would it really be Constitutional?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled the only religion one could legal practice in American was Rastafarianism, would it really be Constitutional?

hey mon, at least pot would be legal mon.

 

[Bummer]

Getting close, but not quite, federal judges are subject to impeachment by the House, and trial by the Senate under Art II, Sec. 4; conviction requires a two-thirds majority. 15 federal judges have been impeached since the Constitution was adopted.

Yes, that would be Impeachment. However my comment that you quoted refers to ".. the power of removal is incident to the power of appointment, ..." Myers v. United States. This addresses issues of less than good judicial behavior that do not rise to the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Regarding Constitutionality, if the Supreme Court finds a law Constitutional, but later reverses itself, how could that law have been both Constitutional AND unConstitutional if the Constitution had not changed?

There is no need for the meanings of the words of the Constitution to magically change. All we need remember is that no man is beyond human frailty. Senility, madness, incompetence, whatever. Clearly at one time or another, within the context of your example, an unqualified person sat on the bench. Based on some of the decisions handed down over the years it clearly happens. One or the other or both decisions represented an example of less than good behavior.

 

[Bummer]

hey mon, at least pot would be legal mon.

Spliffs for everybody, mon.

 

[Birds Away]

And we're back to this again?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled slavery was Constitutional, would it really be Constitutional?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled absolute prohibition on firearms was Constitutional, would it really be Constitutional?

If tomorrow SCOTUS ruled the only religion one could legal practice in American was Rastafarianism, would it really be Constitutional?

My question to you, my friend, is when did you develop this penchant for beating your head against the wall? You do realize it will only lead to pain for you.

 

[cobber]

My question to you, my friend, is when did you develop this penchant for beating your head against the wall? You do realize it will only lead to pain for you.

I prefer the poo-fight with the chimp analogy, as more fitting to the path discussions with certain members inevitably take (i.e., a trip down the scatological).

There is no need for the meanings of the words of the Constitution to magically change. All we need remember is that no man is beyond human frailty. Senility, madness, incompetence, whatever. Clearly at one time or another, within the context of your example, an unqualified person sat on the bench. Based on some of the decisions handed down over the years it clearly happens. One or the other or both decisions represented an example of less than good behavior.

Or the Court rubber-stamping the conventional wisdom as Constitutionally-sanctioned. It's not as if the Supremes are somehow priests of fundamental law, channeling with Madison and Jefferson...

 

[Roscoe38]

8 years ago the national debt was $5.7 trillion. today it is what? 17 plus trillion. Makes my eyes bleed to look at those numbers. And....we still have 14 million people without a living wage job. What a great job the great divider has done for this country.

 

[cobber]

8 years ago the national debt was $5.7 trillion. today it is what? 17 plus trillion. Makes my eyes bleed to look at those numbers. And....we still have 14 million people without a living wage job. What a great job the great divider has done for this country.

Don't forget two facts: he was elected by a majority, and everything he does is constitutional.

Being concerned is not allowed. Everything the man in the WH does is correct AND for your own good. Especially when he takes your money and gives it to other folks.

In before a certain INGOer.

 

[Hotdoger]

"8 years ago the national debt was $5.7 trillion. today it is what? 17 plus trillion. Makes my eyes bleed to look at those numbers. And....we still have 14 million people without a living wage job. What a great job the great divider has done for this country. "

It is all George Bush's fault. Move along nothing to see here.

 

[cobber]

"8 years ago the national debt was $5.7 trillion. today it is what? 17 plus trillion. Makes my eyes bleed to look at those numbers. And....we still have 14 million people without a living wage job. What a great job the great divider has done for this country. "

It is all George Bush's fault. Move along nothing to see here.

Well, it certainly ISN'T Barry fault, if that's what you're getting at!!

 

[Rhoadmar]

You're right, but if SCOTUS says it repeatedly, then it's true.

I believe in my own ability to discern whether or not being required to purchase a product solely because I am a citizen, to be un constitutional.

 

[88GT]

I believe in my own ability to discern whether or not being required to purchase a product solely because I am a citizen, to be un constitutional.

Sorry, it's been established that you are not qualified to determine Constitutionality.

 

[Bogan]

I believe in my own ability to discern whether or not being required to purchase a product solely because I am a citizen, to be un constitutional.

Of course you're entitled to your beliefs, but belief alone doesn't matter whatsoever in the legal sense unless you take it up as a case in SCOTUS, and have a legal ruling made. Don't believe something is Constitutional? Then challenge it in SCOTUS, but in the end it is SCOTUS that determines Constitutionality.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States
"Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit."

 

[gravitas73]

Until I see a Republican advocate the abolishment of the Patriot Act and NDAA, no longer force tech companies to hand over their users' activities using their phones, apps, or computers, declare Stop and Frisk jurisdictions and DUI checkpoints as unconstitutional, stop talking about banning gay marriage, and stop claiming Christianity has a monopoly on morality... I will never believe they are for a small Constitutional government.

They had one, until they laughed him off the stage.

 

[rkwhyte2]

Sorry, it's been established that you are not qualified to determine Constitutionality.

That's right you have no standing.