Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list?

[PleasantValley]

That is simply a horrible post, and a horrible thing to say.

I respect your opinion and don't want you thinking I am some kind of Ogre.
so...to clarify...

When I said she should go, I meant she should step down because of her age.
This is why I called her a fossil.

MY WIFE is the one who wants her to die, and in my post I said right there in light blue and black that this was "not cricket". A British term meaning improper and not right.
No one should ever wish death upon someone they have never been wronged by and only see on TV.

Now...if you still think I am an Ogre, I can not help that, but I am not...and you can look at pretty much every post I make here as proof.

 

[nota bene]

The conservative glee at the thought of Ginsburg's death is pretty par for the course for trump supporters.

No glee from me, Cardinal. The fact that she was Scalia's friend says everything to me.

 

[Fishking]

If you have any complaints about how I reacted to the death of Scalia you're free to share them.

Nice try at moving the goalpost by trying to make it just about you. Your comment I responded to was a broad-brush of conservatives or Trump supporters. Here's where the dishonesty that I have to constantly call you out for comes to play.

The conservative glee at the thought of Ginsburg's death is pretty par for the course for trump supporters.

:roll: Because the death of Scalia was treated with respect...

If you wanted to make it just about yourself then you should've made your post just about the OP. Stop being dishonest.

 

[Cardinal]

Nice try at moving the goalpost by trying to make it just about you. Your comment I responded to was a broad-brush of conservatives or Trump supporters. Here's where the dishonesty that I have to constantly call you out for comes to play.





If you wanted to make it just about yourself then you should've made your post just about the OP. Stop being dishonest.

Learn the meaning of "moving the goal post."

As I said, if you don't like how I behaved after Scalia's death, you're free to share your specific complaints here.

 

[Fishking]

Learn the meaning of "moving the goal post."

As I said, if you don't like how I behaved after Scalia's death, you're free to share your specific complaints here.

More dishonestly, even with it's quoted back-to-back and on full display.

 

[Cardinal]

More dishonestly, even with it's quoted back-to-back and on full display.

Buh bye.

 

[Harshaw]

Learn the meaning of "moving the goal post."

As I said, if you don't like how I behaved after Scalia's death, you're free to share your specific complaints here.

He knows it. You did it. And you repeated that same goalpost-moving here, even after he called you on it.

I'd call it "chutzpah," but it's really only a kind of stupid stubbornness on your part which serves no purpose other than to make yourself look bad.

Of course, this is hardly the first thread in which you've foolishly, knowingly dug in on a losing point, now, is it?

 

[Harshaw]

Buh bye.

Ha! Take your toys and go home. Teh.

Suggestion: say fewer stupidly dishonest things, and stop digging in on stupid dishonesty.

 

[cabse5]

I wasn't <against Garland replacing Scalia>. :shrug: Why?

SIAP. Probably posted by Ranae, no doubt. Possibly already answered by you. Sorry, I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

If Garland would've been confirmed, that wouldn't been the replacement of Scalia, an originalist, with an Obama appointee that would've upset the 'balance of the court'. Why are you against the confirmation of another originalist judge upsetting the balance of the court when you weren't against the proposed replacement of Scalia with Garland which would've upset the balance of the court?

 

[Kal'Stang]

SIAP. Probably posted by Ranae, no doubt. Possibly already answered by you. Sorry, I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

If Garland would've been confirmed, that wouldn't been the replacement of Scalia, an originalist, with an Obama appointee that would've upset the 'balance of the court'. Why are you against the confirmation of another originalist judge upsetting the balance of the court when you weren't against the proposed replacement of Scalia with Garland which would've upset the balance of the court?

There's always going to be some back and forth. That's to be expected in any voting system that is not even numbered. What I don't want to happen is, say for example, a 7-2 swing (in any direction) etc etc.

 

[cabse5]

There's always going to be some back and forth. That's to be expected in any voting system that is not even numbered. What I don't want to happen is, say for example, a 7-2 swing (in any direction) etc etc.

Why not?

EDIT: OK, I'll show my cards. The president gets to nominate potential SCOTUS judges. The election of the president is a direct reflection of how the people feel about them.

Do you maintain that the courts must maintain a balance of conservative to liberal opinions on the courts? If so, why?

 

[Kal'Stang]

Why not?

EDIT: OK, I'll show my cards. The president gets to nominate potential SCOTUS judges. The election of the president is a direct reflection of how the people feel about them.

Do you maintain that the courts must maintain a balance of conservative to liberal opinions on the courts? If so, why?

Because such would open the door to activism by judges. Having a relatively balanced court reduces the chances and ability of a judge to be an activist. It's not always going to strictly be balanced..but we should keep it that way as much as possible to reduce activism and support of things that would clearly be unconstitutional. For example miscegenation laws were clearly unconstitutional (right to association for example) but many judges allowed them due to their biases and a majority (hell...all of them afaik) of them being "old white men".

And for the most part, in most elections people generally don't even think of SCOTUS when voting. Most people are more concerned with them and theirs. So I don't think its correct to say that the election of a President is a direct reflection of how people feel about them (if by them you meant SCOTUS judges).

 

[Bullseye]

Actually there is a difference. An invented Right would be a Right which has never ever been talked about before. An acknowledgement of a Right is realizing that something that had been talked about previously was/is actually should be considered a Right.

Again sounds like a distinction without a difference. EVERY right not specifically enumerated in the constitution and BoR is INVENTED; someone started to talk about it first.

Think you need to re-read what I said. I said that we have decades of jurisprudence acknowledging that the Right to Marry is an inherent Right. I did NOT say that we have decades of jurisprudence acknowledging that SSM was an inherent Right.

Ok, I see that now. We've got laws specifying age, competence, and a view other issues. SSM is a relatively new right.

And yes, I know we have those that would argue that marriage should not be in the governments bailiwick. That however did not start up until miscegenation laws were struck down and after that settled it was raised again against SSM. All the people that argue this point are religious and believe that marriage is a union based around God/Allah etc etc. Each and every single one of them fail to recognize that historically marriage was purely governmental/civil in nature until the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1563 started to demand that a priest be involved in weddings. (note: that is after the Americas were discovered)

I have zero problem with SSM pragmatically.

 

[Goshin]

How people feel about such things typically depends on who's ox is getting gored, and where they stand on it. Party or ideology, mostly.

Dems were pretty excited when Scalia died while Obama was in office, and wanted to replace the arch-conservative Justice with someone considerably more to the left. Repubs naturally found this against their interests and used every means available to delay it until after the elections, then the Ds tried to Bork the R-chosen candidate even though he is not as far right as Scalia was.

I remember quite a bit of glee on the left, some even saying this was their chance to destroy the 2A.

This is just a flip-side of the same record. D's will fear seeing RBG (the left-female version of Scalia) replaced with a "conservative appointed" justice, while Rs will see it as a chance to turn the court to the right. Both sides will struggle to get their way with every political weapon at their disposal.

This is evidence that the Court has grown far too powerful, like the Fedgov in general, that a single black-robe appointment can be seen as either the opportunity of a lifetime or the end of life-as-we-know-it, depending on the side you favor.

The solution is de-empowering the Court and the Fedgov by a large degree... but that's probably just a dream.



Edit: I'd personally prefer to see RBG replaced with a Justice who was as politically neutral as possible, or else a Centrist. I don't wish to see the court swing too far to either extreme.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Again sounds like a distinction without a difference. EVERY right not specifically enumerated in the constitution and BoR is INVENTED; someone started to talk about it first.

This is taking it to extremes. EVERYTHING was new at one point in time. However, the BoR's was written not on new ideas, but on old ideas that had been around for centuries in some form or other. Jury trials for example pre-dates the Norman Conquest. The same applies for Rights not enumerated in the BoR's. SSM for example can be traced back centuries also. Among Native American tribes for instance and there was even some SSM marriages that happened in Catholicism...though they were EXTREMELY rare and today they are contested as not really being marriages when ever they're brought up....usually over semantical nonsense.

Ok, I see that now. We've got laws specifying age, competence, and a view other issues. SSM is a relatively new right.

Laws specifying age, competence etc etc are more along the lines of regulations meant to prevent harm, not prevent marriage overall.

Bold: But marriage is not. All that happened with SSM is a recognition that marriage should not be restricted based on gender. A new right wasn't created. An old Right was just extended in compass. Just like the right to live free was extended to encompass black people. The Right was always there, it was just being suppressed/constricted by people due to biases/prejudice/hate etc etc.

 

[trixare4kids]

The conservative glee at the thought of Ginsburg's death is pretty par for the course for trump supporters.

If I were to go to a search engine and look up intellectual dishonesty, your post above could be used as an example of that type of fallacy.

 

[MTAtech]

The conservative glee at the thought of Ginsburg's death is pretty par for the course for trump supporters.

Fortunately, Ruth is immortal.

 

[trixare4kids]

There are several on the court that are getting up there in age and any of them could check out before Ginsberg. But if that should happen in the near future, I would like to see an originalist fill the position. My reason is because of the radical interpretation of the law coming from the lower courts. I see the SC as a check and balance on them. With originalists, they take the key political issues of our time out of the courts and would return them to the political branches where they belong.

:applaud

 

[Cardinal]

Fortunately, Ruth is immortal.

Frankly, she's going to need to be the Highlander. After all the bloodlust expressed by Republicans in this thread (and these are probably sane versions of Republicans by today's standards) I wouldn't be surprised in the least if a lot of Republicans out there were entertaining assassination fantasies.

 

[VanceMack]

There really should be a singular simple standard followed by ALL justices. Does the new law, lawsuit,or policy conform to the Constitution or not. Not "how can we shoehorn this policy into the Constitution"...but simply does it fit. The marriage issue is a prime example. Marriage is found NOWHERE in the Constitution. Rule and law regarding marriage should be made in accordance with State governments and the will of the people. Civil Unions can and ought to be universally applied for interstate legal purposes. Marriage...not a federal issue.

 

[TheRepublican]

Go ahead can this be a female? I think if the president shows equally opportunity to try to show bipartisanship! That is what I would do to try to get through to the democrats?

 

[cabse5]

Because such would open the door to activism by judges. Having a relatively balanced court reduces the chances and ability of a judge to be an activist. It's not always going to strictly be balanced..but we should keep it that way as much as possible to reduce activism and support of things that would clearly be unconstitutional. For example miscegenation laws were clearly unconstitutional (right to association for example) but many judges allowed them due to their biases and a majority (hell...all of them afaik) of them being "old white men".

And for the most part, in most elections people generally don't even think of SCOTUS when voting. Most people are more concerned with them and theirs. So I don't think its correct to say that the election of a President is a direct reflection of how people feel about them (if by them you meant SCOTUS judges).

I didn't make it clear. I meant the election of the president (which is a clear indicator the people (via E. College) like his policies) makes the choice of potential SCOTUS judges by elected president more likely a reflection of how the people (via E. College) like the choice of SCOTUS judge.

I think The Constitution should be interpreted how the founders and subsequent amendments wanted The Constitution to be interpreted.

Side note but case in point: If SCOTUS operated like the founders planned SCOTUS to operate, SCOTUS would be a body which decided whether laws were constitutional and decided other governmental matters using The Constitution rather than how SCOTUS operates now which is an unofficial co-equal (and sometimes ultimate) fourth branch of government. And, consequently, SCOTUS wouldn't have as much power and people wouldn't freak out over SCOTUS nominees nor freak out if a balance of power occurred in the courts.

 

[concernedpuma]

Not only does it not fear me, I pray for the day! That old woman is a living colostomy bag on the Union!!
Regards,
CP

 

[Harshaw]

It will most likely be ignored like usual.

And you were right.

 

[Cassandra]

There really should be a singular simple standard followed by ALL justices. Does the new law, lawsuit,or policy conform to the Constitution or not. Not "how can we shoehorn this policy into the Constitution"...but simply does it fit. The marriage issue is a prime example. Marriage is found NOWHERE in the Constitution. Rule and law regarding marriage should be made in accordance with State governments and the will of the people. Civil Unions can and ought to be universally applied for interstate legal purposes. Marriage...not a federal issue.

Where in the Constitution does it say that Corporations are people?