Justice Kennedy retiring! Gun rights will be secured for generations.

[Trial153]

Absolutism doenst work, it never has. It doesnt matter what side you come out of to profess it. Unfortunately we dont have to look further then this post to see its prevailing theme in our society.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

 

[ColeKira]

Absolutism doenst work, it never has. It doesnt matter what side you come out of to profess it. Unfortunately we dont have to look further then this post to see its prevailing theme in our society.

Sent from my SM-G950U1 using Tapatalk

I don't think it's absolutism as much as many judges who are legislating from the bench instead of looking at the actual law. These hard left leaning activist judges aren't part of a healthy balance. Leftist policies run contrary to the constitution. We have socialists running and being elected. Are these the people we want on the SCOTUS to avoid absolutism?

 

[WV Mountaineer]

I’m not seeing where many conservative judges are insinuating it’s their role to make law versus decide it’s interpretation. I’m not seeing conservative judges over stepping their bounds to try and affect government policy by creating law. Can’t say that for liberal judges.that is why I’m pretty certain the contrary to the middle ground political argument doesn’t reside left of center. We do intact need compasoniate, respectful, intelligent, and knowledgeable justices for this Reason. Never seen too many liberals that fit that description in practice. Only in theory. And, I’m a results oriented kind of guy too. So, I pay attention to that first and foremost.


What we need is responsible people who understand governments role as outlined in our Constitution. Only one group seems to Understand that with any regularity. Its not the middle or the left either. That much is for sure.

 

[mproberts]

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Our founding fathers included Article 5 of the Constitution for the direct purpose of creating a better document than our first Consituion (ie. The Articles of Confederation), which required a unanimous vote by all 13 state legislatures. "The Founders, recognizing that they were creating a new form of government unlike any other known to the world, realized that they were fallible. To perceive any and every eventuality, and address its solution in the original document was beyond their wildest dreams. The need for a means with which to allow changes to the sacred document warranted the insertion of Article 5"

James Madison explained the importance of article 5 by saying it "guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults."

Multiple states did not ratify the Constitution until the amendments that made up the "Bill of Rights" were included, this was years after Congress began operating. People often forget that your beloved first ten amendments are just that amendments to a "living Constitution".

I have never understood how politics should play into one simple concept.......interpreting and ruling on law based on the Constitution. The liberals want the Constitution to be a "living Constitution".....one that changes with the times. But here's why the Founding Fathers had no intention of it being that way: If the Constitution had been intended to be a living document that changed with the times.........there would have been no need for it at all. If it's constantly changing, then the laws would already reflect those changes, be current to the times, and easily changed for new times. That's why they set it up the way they did. It doesn't change with the times. All laws and decisions should be based off of it as it was written and intended. Politics, political affiliation, or a nation full of reprobates aside.

 

[Billinsd]

I haven't mentioned this, but I'd much prefer Libertarians for Supreme Court Justices. They would be the best, even though I know I wouldn't like some of their interpretations. It's not about what I like.

 

[5MilesBack]

I'm sorry but this is just wrong. Our founding fathers included Article 5 of the Constitution for the direct purpose of creating a better document than our first Consituion (ie. The Articles of Confederation), which required a unanimous vote by all 13 state legislatures. "The Founders, recognizing that they were creating a new form of government unlike any other known to the world, realized that they were fallible. To perceive any and every eventuality, and address its solution in the original document was beyond their wildest dreams. The need for a means with which to allow changes to the sacred document warranted the insertion of Article 5"

James Madison explained the importance of article 5 by saying it "guards equally against that extreme facility which would render the Constitution too mutable; and that extreme difficulty which might perpetuate its discovered faults."

Multiple states did not ratify the Constitution until the amendments that made up the "Bill of Rights" were included, this was years after Congress began operating. People often forget that your beloved first ten amendments are just that amendments to a "living Constitution".

Which is WHY they made it so difficult to create amendments, so that extremism couldn't just change whatever they wanted to because of the times. Unfortunately, we have Justices and Federal judges that want to MAKE law instead of interpreting it. And until new amendments are actually created and put into place, it is still the SCOTUS's responsibility to interpret based on what's already there........not what could be, or how they see that it should be in their minds. That's the problem. Too many activist judges in our country today.

Can it be amended? Absolutely.......with the correct process. But until it is..........it is what it is, and that doesn't change in regards to their decisions, no matter how much they may think that it should.

 

[ColeKira]

I haven't mentioned this, but I'd much prefer Libertarians for Supreme Court Justices. They would be the best, even though I know I wouldn't like some of their interpretations. It's not about what I like.

I consider myself more Libertarian than anything else, but I've also encountered some very odd definitions of "Libertarian". That being said, anther Scalia would be fine with me!

 

[mproberts]

I see what you are saying but everyone not just liberals wants a "living constitution" that can be changed through Legislative actions.

The argument about judges making law is very complicated, it's impossible to interpret the laws as written without establishing a precedent that must be considered by other future judges as they apply previous judicial decisions with the original legislatively enacted statute. I don't know how you can say the interpretation of the laws is not an example of incrementally making laws. The interpretation of the laws as written will always be guided in some way by a judges principles. It is impossible for them to know what the legislature had intended because if they knew it would be clearly defined in the law, as an example when it comes to the 4th amendment no one making the laws could have foreseen todays age of information technology.. ie. aggregated meta data and how that applies to the written law on "search and seizure" of "papers and effects"

Which is WHY they made it so difficult to create amendments, so that extremism couldn't just change whatever they wanted to because of the times. Unfortunately, we have Justices and Federal judges that want to MAKE law instead of interpreting it. And until new amendments are actually created and put into place, it is still the SCOTUS's responsibility to interpret based on what's already there........not what could be, or how they see that it should be in their minds. That's the problem. Too many activist judges in our country today.

Can it be amended? Absolutely.......with the correct process. But until it is..........it is what it is, and that doesn't change in regards to their decisions, no matter how much they may think that it should.

 

[FLAK]

NO. THANKS. I'd much prefer a strict Constitutionist.

Amen, Brother.

 

[Murdy]

You gotta be joking, but I'll bite. Conservatives love the Constitution. Liberals hate it. Moderates are in the middle. Liberals want to interpret the Constitution the way it pleases them, not change by Amendments. Conservatives know the only correct way to change the Constitution is by Amendments. Moderates are in the middle. There are three branches of government, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. It's really that simple.

"Liberals want to interpret the Constitution the way it pleases them." Really? Kindly show me where in the text of the Constitution it says corporations have first amendment rights? That's what the conservative majority said in Citizen's United. This is rank judicial activism at its worse. Of course, conservative politicians have always been bought and paid for by corporate America.

"Conservatives love the Constitution. Liberals hate it." Conservatives routinely try to limit the reach of constitutional protections by interpreting them is such a narrow manner as to render them meaningless (so who really hates the Constitution?). Of course, this makes sense if you are representing those with true power (corporations). Limit the government and big business can do what it wants.

I don't get the trust conservatives have for corporate America. Corporations generate wealth; that's good. But wealth equals power, so you need something to counterbalance that power to prevent its abuse.

By the way, I'd prefer a Libertarian too, but I'd bet my view of a libertarian is substantially different -- a judge who gives an expansive reading of rights to keep government out of people's (not corporations) lives.

 

[R_burg]

Im glad Citizens United was brought up... It single handedly defeats many of the arguments lobbed about Conservatives being so pro constitution and liberals being the devil incarnate.

They both suck, in their own ways. Yay for moderates!

Unfortunately the current court is very political, and mirrors our national political climate.

Its borderline debilitating for a moderate like myself to watch.

 

[jmez]

I don't get the trust conservatives have for corporate America. Corporations generate wealth; that's good. But wealth equals power, so you need something to counterbalance that power to prevent its abuse.

On the flip side, I don't get the trust liberals have for government. Government equals power, the ultimate power. There really isn't anything to counterbalance that.

 

[Billinsd]

"Conservatives love the Constitution. Liberals hate it." Conservatives routinely try to limit the reach of constitutional protections by interpreting them is such a narrow manner as to render them meaningless (so who really hates the Constitution?). Of course, this makes sense if you are representing those with true power (corporations). Limit the government and big business can do what it wants.

Yes Conservatives are generally very pro business . I prefer Libertarians like Rand Paul when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. I don't love big corporations that have lots of power. However, I much prefer powerful corporations over government any day and twice on Sunday. We can agree to disagree on that. Yes limit government and give business more freedom. I'm a limited government guy and yes there are some bad consequences with that. However, I believe there are much worse consequences of big and unchecked government. We don't have true capitalism anymore, we have government crony capitalism. Trump is real big on this and it's a big point that I disagree with him on.

I don't get the trust conservatives have for corporate America. Corporations generate wealth; that's good. But wealth equals power, so you need something to counterbalance that power to prevent its abuse.

Conservatives don't trust government by definition. They do not believe in creating a powerful government to control powerful people and corporations, because the government will (is) corrupt too. They trust in what used to be capitalism, supply and demand. No it's not perfect and some people will suffer. Corporations do not execute people, they do not wage wars, they do not engage in genocide, they do not enslave people. Governments do. We don't have to agree, but I think it's critical we understand each other and argue issues. Bill

 

[R_burg]

Yes Conservatives are generally very pro business . I prefer Libertarians like Rand Paul when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. I don't love big corporations that have lots of power. However, I much prefer powerful corporations over government any day and twice on Sunday. We can agree to disagree on that. Yes limit government and give business more freedom. I'm a limited government guy and yes there are some bad consequences with that. However, I believe there are much worse consequences of big and unchecked government. We don't have true capitalism anymore, we have government crony capitalism. Trump is real big on this and it's a big point that I disagree with him on. Conservatives don't trust government by definition. They do not believe in creating a powerful government to control powerful people and corporations, because the government will (is) corrupt too. They trust in what used to be capitalism, supply and demand. No it's not perfect and some people will suffer. Corporations do not execute people, they do not wage wars, they do not engage in genocide, they do not enslave people. Governments do. We don't have to agree, but I think it's critical we understand each other and argue issues. Bill

Bullshit. People do. And people control corporations, just like they control governments.

Honest question: Are you aware of the results of "unfettered capitalism" on anyone but the elite before Teddy R started government regulation of industry?

Are you pro-oligarchy? Thats the result of "unfettered capitalism".

I feel like everyone thinks their a f'n economist now. We have as close to "real capitalism" as there is in the world. Contending otherwise is a joke.

Its much easier to make an argument that markets have too much control, than it is they have too little.

 

[Murdy]

Thanks for the thoughtful response -- Wasn't sure if I was going to get flamed on this or not.

I am no fan of big government for big government's sake. On the government side, however, the founders, in their wisdom, built in various checks and balances: the division of the federal government into three branches, the division of congress into 2 bodies, the division of federal and state power, the electoral college (not necessarily a popular one, but it's there), the built in inertia against making changes (someone pointed out the cumbersome amendment process). On the private side, its a free for all. Aside from safeguards imposed from the outside (by government, like anti-trust law), there isn't much to limit corporate actions. You can bet that Amazon, if able, would consolidate power and destroy the competition as fast as possible.

Thus, though government is prone to corruptions (and even more often, ineptitude), I find unchecked corporate power more problematic. Corporate interests are often opposed to the middle class (workers and consumers). When corporations are doing what they are supposed to be doing at their very best (paying us as little as possible for our labor; charging as much as possible for goods; reducing production costs without regard to consequences that don't affect their bottom line), they are often working at cross-purposes to middle class interests. I see some government intervention as the only check and balance on corporate power.

Anyways, that's what underlies my concerns and maybe makes me a little less opposed to government than what is probably the norm here.

 

[jmden]

NO. THANKS. I'd much prefer a strict Constitutionist.

Amen...

 

[Broomd]

Respectfully, some of you guys simply don't get it.

I didn't allude to any political ideology ie, Conservative, Libertarian, Moderate, Liberal, when I opined on my hope for our next SCOTUS nom. That is the merit in a 'strict Constitutional' jurist. It isn't at all based on ideology.
The Constitution isn't a 'living and breathing' document....it is more akin to a chunk of granite: solid, tough to move, and enduring.

Judicial rulings should be based on professional interpretation of existing law in light of the Constitution, not 'feelings' as we just saw from the dissenters on the travel ban.
"Trump hates Muslims, so the ban should be upheld'... patently ridiculous.

 

[jmden]

Proponents of political tyranny are usually well-motivated. Those who enacted the gun-control laws in California point to criminals who have used semi-automatic weapons to commit horrible, murderous acts. But the illusion -- the pipe dream -- is that bad acts can be prevented by the deprivation of liberty. They cannot be! Life is always insecure. The only choice is between liberty and insecurity, on the one hand, and insecurity and enslavement on the other.

The true patriot scrutinizes the actions of his own government with unceasing vigilance. And when his government violates the morality and rightness associated with principles of individual freedom and private property, he immediately rises in opposition to his government. This is why the gun owners of California might ultimately go down in history as among the greatest and most courageous patriots of our time.

Is that your own quote? Well said either way... I can't imagine living in CA right now, but keep fighting.

 

[Murdy]

I didn't allude to any political ideology ie, Conservative, Libertarian, Moderate, Liberal, when I opined on my hope for our next SCOTUS nom. That is the merit in a 'strict Constitutional' jurist. It isn't at all based on ideology.
The Constitution isn't a 'living and breathing' document....it is more akin to a chunk of granite: solid, tough to move, and enduring.

I get what you are saying. I would point out that one of the arguments I've heard quite a bit lately is that the founder's couldn't have possible intended the Second Amendment to apply to modern military firearms and that it was intended to be limited to the sorts of weapons in existence at the time it was enacted. I do not believe this any more than I believe the First Amendment doesn't apply to radio, TV, or the internet. The point is, the constitution has got to live and breath a little.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

The constitution isn’t up for interpretation. It’s really very clear. It’s not here to do anything but limit governments rights I. Regards to individual liberty of the people. Saying otherwise is a direct reflection of why this becomes a debate. Governments role is defined and outlined. The rest is just degrees of people personal opinions. Which MEANS absolutely ZERO.