- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 20,915
- Reaction score
- 546
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Kelzie said:There a reason you had to turn it into an attack on liberals? I have yet to see a single person on this site, liberal or conservative, who agrees with the Supreme Court's decision.
Unfortunately, those conservative appointed judges were the best we could get through at the time. We thought they would be conservative enough to rule against an idiotic decision like this one, but we were wrong, and we got burned. Clingon got what he wanted in a judge though, probably a little more than he wanted honestly.shuamort said:Yes. Damnable liberal judges of whom only two were appointed by a liberal.
Stevens=Ford
Kennedy=Reagan
Souter=HW Bush
Ginsburg =Clinton
Breyer=Clinton
shuamort said:Yes. Damnable liberal judges of whom only two were appointed by a liberal.
Stevens=Ford
Kennedy=Reagan
Souter=HW Bush
Ginsburg =Clinton
Breyer=Clinton
shuamort said:Yes. Damnable liberal judges of whom only two were appointed by a liberal.
Stevens=Ford
Kennedy=Reagan
Souter=HW Bush
Ginsburg =Clinton
Breyer=Clinton
Through the Keno v New London decision by leftist judges on the Supreme Court supported by liberal congressmen and women have now allowed for the condemnation of peoples homes living in a mostly urban industrialized area inhabited by blue collar African Americans to build a yaght club.
As one woman put it: "The way I see it they feel that the view is to good for me and should be given to million aires."
fuq this **** this is a clear cut case of unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court so that big government can make more money viva le revolution anyone???
Here's the link to the full story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...adlines-nation
I believe in the 200+ years of country history under the 1803 SCOTUS decision of Marbury v. Madison. Literalism coupled with disregarding precedent is a relatively new concept.Scarecrow Akhbar said:Question:
Do you agree or disagree that judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution as it was intended to mean?
Or do you believe that the Constitution is a living document, something akin to TP?
After you show me where in the constitution that they are the ones who appoint the nominee instead of just approve them.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Please tell me were the Congresses that confirmed the presidential S.C. nominees Republican or Democraticly dominated?
stsburns said:Eminent Domain is in the Constitution. How come no one is discussing ammending the constitution?
shuamort said:I believe in the 200+ years of country history under the 1803 SCOTUS decision of Marbury v. Madison. Literalism coupled with disregarding precedent is a relatively new concept.
After you show me where in the constitution that they are the ones who appoint the nominee instead of just approve them.
shuamort said:I believe in the 200+ years of country history under the 1803 SCOTUS decision of Marbury v. Madison. Literalism coupled with disregarding precedent is a relatively new concept.
After you show me where in the constitution that they are the ones who appoint the nominee instead of just approve them.
stsburns said:Eminent Domain is in the Constitution. How come no one is discussing ammending the constitution?
FinnMacCool said:Trajan, do you think anyone is happy with this? This has to be the stupidest thing I've ever read but what annoys me is the way you republicans now get to prance around with joy and act all self riteous. Why is it that I have to be held responsible for the so-called "liberal" judges?
did I say you should I said that the liberal judges and liberal congress people who support the decision should be held accountable. and it's not so called liberal it's just the way it is liberals are pro-big government and this is the type of **** that happens when the Government is granted to much power.
FinnMacCool said:Ah I see. Well I don't agree with you but at least you have an explanation. Thanks.
BTW do you watch Rome, Trajan?
Congress doesn't get to pick who is nominated, do they? Answer: No.Trajan Octavian Titus said:Come on soldier slim it's an easy question Dem or Rep congress??? It's a presidential nomination and a congressional confirmation.
No, but luckily congress fixed those decisions post hoc. Just as has been proposed with the eminent domain decision. It's activated local governments to ensure their laws protect the citizens.Scarecrow Akhbar said:Precedents including flawed readings of the Constitution should not be a basis for further interpretation.
Or do you thing Dred Scott and Plessy vs Ferguson and Kelo vs New London were good decisions?
shuamort said:No, but luckily congress fixed those decisions post hoc. Just as has been proposed with the eminent domain decision. It's activated local governments to ensure their laws protect the citizens.
Like it or not, Dred Scott v Sanford was a legitimate solution. Dred Scott and Brown v Board are not related save for the fact that they deal with race. If we're really talking about Dred, then yes, congress DID fix the decision (coupled with the civil war, of course)Scarecrow Akhbar said:Congress didn't fix the Dredd Scott decision.
It took 60 years of Jim Crow before Plessy vs Ferguson was overturned by Brown vs Board of Education, and then it took another ten years before a totally flawed law called "Civil Rights Act of 1964" was passed by a bi-partisan vote (have to say that because it's a mess both parties should feel guilty for).
Basis? We're discussing precedent. Of course, we've been using precedent based rulings for almost as long as the US Constitution has been around. To change this would be to ignore 200 years or legal history.Scarecrow Akhbar said:Yeah, courts following precedent is such a wonderful thing.
How about that precedent of Roe v Wade? You know, the silly decision that the Tenth Amendment guarantees for all 50 states because 5 or more liberals made a ruling which has absolutely no basis in the Constitution?
Or in this case, 200 years before in Marbury v Madison. You want to change that? Elect congress folk who would change the laws which would disallow court opinions to be based on precedent.Scarecrow Akhbar said:The intent of the Constitution is so plain on the eminent domain issue that it's totally absurd that a court would rule the way it did on Kelo vs New London. State and Federal legislatures shouldn't have to be passing legislation to repair a wrong judgement by the court.
The court should not hold precedent as some holy grail and it should be willing to examine each case in terms of the Constitution, not in terms of what other judges ruled 1, 10, or 100 years before.
I've personally been kicking around the idea that SCOTUS justices should be voted in instead of appointed.Scarecrow Akhbar said:Clearly the Supreme Court needs some form of reality check, either limited terms or votes of confidence. Not that it matters, becuase no one needs to tell me that no such reforms are ever going to make it through the Amendment process.
That was amusing.Scarecrow Akhbar said:So, in a case like Kelo vs New London, I'm totally in support of the man that immediately applied for a eminent domain take over of Souter's property in Connecticut.
shuamort said:Like it or not, Dred Scott v Sanford was a legitimate solution. Dred Scott and Brown v Board are not related save for the fact that they deal with race. If we're really talking about Dred, then yes, congress DID fix the decision (coupled with the civil war, of course)
shuamort said:Basis? We're discussing precedent. Of course, we've been using precedent based rulings for almost as long as the US Constitution has been around. To change this would be to ignore 200 years or legal history.
shuamort said:Or in this case, 200 years before in Marbury v Madison. You want to change that? Elect congress folk who would change the laws which would disallow court opinions to be based on precedent.
shuamort said:I've personally been kicking around the idea that SCOTUS justices should be voted in instead of appointed. [/quoted]
You mean the same people that elected Bush can vote for the judges? Are you really sure that's a good idea?
Personally, I think elections are an anachonism from a time of limited technology. As far as Congressmen go, we'd probably be better off if a computer randomly selected a representative from each district and he had the option to accept or decline the position. Certainly a random slice of America would be far less corrupt than the thugs we have in Washington now. That idea has as much chance of seeing daylight as your.
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.htmlshuamort said:That was amusing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?