O'Connor to Retire From Supreme Court

[Alex]

You know, in all fairness, it wasn't the founding farthers who said the court was to interpret law...that was the Marbury court....though some people in the judicial system think they did enough to be considered founding fathers.

Wrong. Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

 

[ShamMol]

Wrong. The judicial branch interpreted that section of the constitution to mean what they now do. Before, the court was not doing that. Before they were literally deciding who was right and wrong. After, they said, hey, we are going to interpret now because that is waht the constitution says. In a way we are both right. That is what the constitution says, so you are correct, but I am correct in saying it wasn't until Marbury that they had that power.

 

[GPS_Flex]

I am looking for them to interpret the consitution without political influence and to do what is right.

If this is how you really feel, would you support anyone, anyone on the planet, for the nomination if they thought the Roe vs. Wade ruling was constitutionally wrong?

If the law is unconstitution, and thus bad, then it is gone, no questions asked.

“No questions asked” is the operative phrase you might want to give some thought when assigning such liberties/powers to judges.

The constitution is a living document that must always be changing to fit the new needs of society and usually the Supreme Court has seen fit to do this.

You make my point for me. This isn’t the role of the Supreme Court.

The Constitution is a living document because we, the people, are allowed to change it to adapt to the times. We the people; we decide what the law and the constitution is and what’s right for our society, not judges. If you want to give all your rights away to judges, tell your congressman or senator to push for such a law.

The problem with you liberals is your reliance upon judges to create laws for issues that didn’t exist when the constitution was written. If you want the constitution to say that a woman has a constitutional right to murder her unborn baby, amend the constitution but don’t tell me the constitution gives rights to the citizens because that only shows you don’t have a clue what the constitution did, the power it transferred or to whom said power was from transferred or from whom it was relinquished.

 

[GPS_Flex]

How can anyone take someone seriously when in the same paragraph they bitch about how hating partisan politics and in the very next sentence this guy practices partisan politics?

I fail to see how Squawker “practiced partisan politics”.

If you deny the fact there is a certain segment that will hate Bush no matter what he does, you are a fool. That segment is well represented here and I dare say you are part of that clan.

Your attempted defamation of Squawker’s character is silly. Stick to the issues at hand Champ.

 

[Alex]

Wrong. The judicial branch interpreted that section of the constitution to mean what they now do. Before, the court was not doing that. Before they were literally deciding who was right and wrong. After, they said, hey, we are going to interpret now because that is waht the constitution says. In a way we are both right. That is what the constitution says, so you are correct, but I am correct in saying it wasn't until Marbury that they had that power.

The right to Constitutional law was always a Supreme Court power, just as the Constitution states. It just wasn't acknowledged until Marbury.

 

[ShamMol]

If this is how you really feel, would you support anyone, anyone on the planet, for the nomination if they thought the Roe vs. Wade ruling was constitutionally wrong?

If they can present a legal argument, they have the right to vote taht way when they are appointed. However, now that it has been upheld so many times, I would be hardpressed to find someone who can legally say that there are more avenues to challenge.

“No questions asked” is the operative phrase you might want to give some thought when assigning such liberties/powers to judges.

That is the way it is. If it is unconstitutional, it is ruled thus and is gone.

You make my point for me. This isn’t the role of the Supreme Court.

Exactly, ideaology shoudl be seperate from rulings. However, taht will never happen and we have to strive for as close to none as possible. O'Connor may be a great example of this because she takes things on a case by case basis and relies heavily on the facts of each individual case.

The Constitution is a living document because we, the people, are allowed to change it to adapt to the times. We the people; we decide what the law and the constitution is and what’s right for our society, not judges. If you want to give all your rights away to judges, tell your congressman or senator to push for such a law.

We the people want that, but the Justices on the Supreme court sometimes have to enforce it when the Senate is stonewalling or not even listening to the public (see segregation as the best example).

The problem with you liberals is your reliance upon judges to create laws for issues that didn’t exist when the constitution was written. If you want the constitution to say that a woman has a constitutional right to murder her unborn baby, amend the constitution but don’t tell me the constitution gives rights to the citizens because that only shows you don’t have a clue what the constitution did, the power it transferred or to whom said power was from transferred or from whom it was relinquished.

Judges never create laws. They interpret laws and declare them consititutional and define the scope surrounding it. The constitution does give a woman the right to be secure in her body (according to the 1st, 5th, 9th and 15th amms.-I always mix one of those up). I have a small clue what the constitution does, I just define it differently than you, and you can't stand it.

The right to Constitutional law was always a Supreme Court power, just as the Constitution states. It just wasn't acknowledged until Marbury.

That is why I said we were both right. In fact, I even just wrote what you just said. "That is what the constitution says, so you are correct, but I am correct in saying it wasn't until Marbury that they had that power."

 

[GPS_Flex]

I’ll ask a simple question.

Should federal judges interpret the constitution to mean what it actually says or should they stretch it a bit to do what the congress and the majority of voters won’t do?

If you are a proponent of judicial activism, you must be a proponent of the legislative power to undo what judges have done.

How would I be wrong with this assumption?

 

[ShamMol]

I’ll ask a simple question.

Should federal judges interpret the constitution to mean what it actually says or should they stretch it a bit to do what the congress and the majority of voters won’t do?

If you are a proponent of judicial activism, you must be a proponent of the legislative power to undo what judges have done.

How would I be wrong with this assumption?

That question is meant to get an answer out of me that is beneficial to you. So I will reword it so it is fair.

Should judges be able to loosely interpret the constitution even if it is to stretch to something the public doesn't accept?
-Yes, the judges on the Supreme court should take all that is in front of them and in such cases as segregation (which a lot of the public was for) use the legal means to change the law because it is wrong legally, not because they think it is the right thing to do. I see a legal means for such decisions as Roe v. Wade, while you don't and as always, all decisions are open to later interpretation by the Court to change any...wrong decisions.

Now, out of this you will think I am dodging the question. I am not. I am saying it is their responsibility to change so that it is legally right. With the 14th Amm. that stretches to a whole scope of things that normally would never be adressed by the past courts.

And just a question, was that a response to my post or mearly avoiding it? See that is how we use questions to advantage our own posistion...wait..why am I teaching you this, you got it down pat.

 

[teacher]

Don't feel like scrutinizing the constitution. Does Congress have the power to override A Supreme Court decision?

 

[ShamMol]

Don't feel like scrutinizing the constitution. Does Congress have the power to override A Supreme Court decision?

Well, yes and no. They can pass laws regarding the court itself, but once something is ruled unconstitutional and they try and make a new law basically the same, it will be unconstitutional as well.

 

[ludahai]

It isn't going to be interesting, it is all predictable. Democrats will appose and destroy the reputation of anyone President Bush nominates. It is going to be a disgusting display of partisan politics.

The only thing that will be interesting is which mode of character assassination the Dems will use this time. THe Bork approach, the Tower approach, or the Thomas approach, or will they come up with something new. THAT will be the true story of the next four to five weeks.

 

[ludahai]

When this is all said and done, hopefully Roe v. Wade will suffer the same fate as Plessy v. Ferguson. Both were flawed decisions. Separate and unequal was ended by a more enlightened court than the one in the 1890s. Hopefully this legalized slaughter of the most innocent among us will be ended by a more enlightened court in the first decade of the 21st century.

 

[shuamort]

Well, yes and no. They can pass laws regarding the court itself, but once something is ruled unconstitutional and they try and make a new law basically the same, it will be unconstitutional as well.

Or just write an amendment to the constitution.

 

[ludahai]

Or just write an amendment to the constitution.

Amazing how liberals forget about that possibility!

 

[ludahai]

If they can present a legal argument, they have the right to vote taht way when they are appointed. However, now that it has been upheld so many times, I would be hardpressed to find someone who can legally say that there are more avenues to challenge.

How many times do you think Plessy v. Ferguson was upheld before it was overturned in 1954? Just because a decision is upheld for decades doesn't mean that it is the right one and that it can't eventually be overturned!

 

[ShamMol]

How many times do you think Plessy v. Ferguson was upheld before it was overturned in 1954? Just because a decision is upheld for decades doesn't mean that it is the right one and that it can't eventually be overturned!

They upheld it for the same reason each time if I am not mistaken. Every single case was answered almost the same way...I am probably wrong.

But my point is that there have been so many legal challenges on different planes of the legal world that I would be hardpressed to find another for the Supreme Court to answer.

 

[26 X World Champs]

If you deny the fact there is a certain segment that will hate Bush no matter what he does, you are a fool. That segment is well represented here and I dare say you are part of that clan.

Clan, me? I think not, sorry. I am more than capable of agreeing with Comrade Bush, i.e. the Afghanistan War, Guest Worker permits, love of baseball.

Pigeon holing liberals is just plain stupid. Liberals take their positions based upon the actual facts of the particular issue unlike some of the Bushies who back him no matter how many wars he starts, no matter how many times he's proven wrong, they never, ever admit that he's made a mistake.

Bush himself has said recently that he does not believe that America is ready to accept a dismantling of Roe v. Wade, and I agree with him. So does his wife, Laura, who is pro-choice. Latest poll shows 69% of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned.

One last note, in the nightmare scenario that Roe v. Wade is overturned that will not stop abortion from being legal in almost any state because then states decide.

I again must also point out that abortion is NOT murder, so all of you who keep writing that it is please get it right. Murder is a crime, abortion is legal.

 

[GPS_Flex]

Pigeon holing liberals is just plain stupid. Liberals take their positions based upon the actual facts of the particular issue unlike some of the Bushies who back him no matter how many wars he starts, no matter how many times he's proven wrong, they never, ever admit that he's made a mistake.

What a bone head. You crack me up champs.

 

[GPS_Flex]

One last note, in the nightmare scenario that Roe v. Wade is overturned that will not stop abortion from being legal in almost any state because then states decide.

I think that’s why Roe v Wade was wrong.

The Constitution doesn’t cover abortion at all. Thus it is a state issue to be determined by each state.

I can’t imagine any state in the US outlawing abortion but I can see them all putting restrictions on it that reflect the will of the people of said states.



Birth control pills are free and so are condoms. Hand a gun with one bullet in it to every woman who has unprotected sex and tell her to spin the chamber and pull the trigger with the gun to her head.

If you think I’m being silly, try this “personal responsibility” concept the next time you are about to have sex with a woman. Hand her the gun and see if you get laid in a manner that might produce a child.

There's just no excuse for all the abortions happening today.

 

[ludahai]

Clan, me? I think not, sorry. I am more than capable of agreeing with Comrade Bush, i.e. the Afghanistan War, Guest Worker permits, love of baseball.

Like you, I love baseball. Too bad you are a fan of the most evil team on the planet.

Latest poll shows 69% of Americans do not want Roe v. Wade overturned.

Since when to polls determine what is and what is not Constitutional?

One last note, in the nightmare scenario that Roe v. Wade is overturned that will not stop abortion from being legal in almost any state because then states decide.

I can think of at least a dozen states where abortion will be illegal after Roe v. Wade is overturned. My native state of New Hampshire still has an anti-abortion law on the books which would once again come into force when Roe v. Wade is overturned.

I again must also point out that abortion is NOT murder, so all of you who keep writing that it is please get it right. Murder is a crime, abortion is legal.

Wrong. Second defintion of the verb "to murder" according to dictionary.com does not imply any illegality.

To kill brutally or inhumanly.

Abortion fits this definition! Abortion is murder. It is the brutal taking of the most innocent of human lives.

 

[teacher]

Well, yes and no. They can pass laws regarding the court itself, but once something is ruled unconstitutional and they try and make a new law basically the same, it will be unconstitutional as well.

That's what I thought. All the more reason why Judges with an agenda for either side need to kept out and only those who rule soley on the constitutionality of a law only need apply. Imagine if the court was stacked 9-0 for either side with activist judges? That sort of power needs to kept in check.

 

[ludahai]

That's what I thought. All the more reason why Judges with an agenda for either side need to kept out and only those who rule soley on the constitutionality of a law only need apply. Imagine if the court was stacked 9-0 for either side with activist judges? That sort of power needs to kept in check.

Don't forget that it was a Democrat back in 1937 who tried to pack the court by adding to its membership because the court routinely ruled his initiatives as Unconstitutional. The Democrats will stop at nothing to get their agenda through regardless of Constitutionality! That was then, and it is still that way now.

 

[shuamort]

What a bone head.

Moderator Gavel
:smash:
Let's keep the personal insults out of this forum.
/Moderator Gavel

 

[26 X World Champs]

The Democrats will stop at nothing to get their agenda through regardless of Constitutionality! That was then, and it is still that way now.

What a crock! Prove this slander, please? Show all of us how "Democrats will stop at nothing".

Do you know how many members of the current Supremes were appointed by Democrats? 7 by Republicans, 2 by Democrats! So please, please explain what you're talking about?

 

[ludahai]

What a crock! Prove this slander, please? Show all of us how "Democrats will stop at nothing".

Do you know how many members of the current Supremes were appointed by Democrats? 7 by Republicans, 2 by Democrats! So please, please explain what you're talking about?

Which goes to show, considering the current balance on the Court, that Republicans appoint jurists while Democrats appoint ideologues!