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

[Russp17]

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.

Agreed, but if you believe conservative justices aren't doing interpretation you are mistaken. Both sides are interpreting a 240 year old document. You just happen to agree with the side who will be the majority.

 

[5MilesBack]

I feel like everyone thinks their a f'n economist now.

I wouldn't say I'm an economist, but I did major in Economics and Business & Finance. There are some really warped views of capitalism out there these days. On the other hand there were some really warped views of capitalism before these days as well. Karl Marx comes to mind.

 

[Broomd]

Agreed, but if you believe conservative justices aren't doing interpretation you are mistaken. Both sides are interpreting a 240 year old document. You just happen to agree with the side who will be the majority.

I watched an older interview with the late Anton Scalia last night. Amazing man and amazing jurist.

What he said is 100% contrary to what you posted here. He stated that it frustrated him to sometimes rule on cases that he personally disagreed with his own ruling--meaning his ruling didn't match his personal beliefs.... but in light of the Constitution, he knew what had to be done and put forth as law or appeal.
Political correctness and 'feelings' are the domain of the left and frankly why this country is in such deep trouble in so many ways. To many liberals "rule of law" = facism. It is why we are now seeing more and more calling for the elimination of ICE on the border and throughout the country. They (liberals) can't juxtapose 'rule of law' and 'feelings'...

 

[mproberts]

The constitution isn’t up for interpretation. It’s really very clear.

Yes.. it... is.. that's what all this is about. Almost all of the original authors and founding fathers can be directly quoted on their views on the importance of the Supreme Court as the interpreter of the Constitution.

"The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution."

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

I'm honestly confused how you could argue that the constitution isn't up for interpretation?

 

[5MilesBack]

You just happen to agree with the side who will be the majority.

I agree with the side of logic and reason, regardless of whether they are the majority or the minority. But these days those are definitely in the minority in America. It seems as if most Americans have absolutely lost their minds, and their allegiance to the nation as it was founded.

 

[Russp17]

I watched an older interview with the late Anton Scalia last night. Amazing man and amazing jurist.

What he said is 100% contrary to what you posted here. He stated that it frustrated him to sometimes rule on cases that he personally disagreed with his own ruling--meaning his ruling didn't match his personal beliefs.... but in light of the Constitution, he knew what had to be done and put forth as law or appeal.
Political correctness and 'feelings' are the domain of the left and frankly why this country is in such deep trouble in so many ways. To many liberals "rule of law" = facism. It is why we are now seeing more and more calling for the elimination of ICE on the border and throughout the country. They (liberals) can't juxtapose 'rule of law' and 'feelings'...

I disagree that interruption of the law does not take place. Cases do not get to the supreme court unless an interruption of the law is necessary. I didn't mention anything about my political beliefs so rule of law, liberals etc that is your opinion not a fact. 50% of the country will disagree with you.

I just mentioned it is a fact that justices have to make interruption of the law (no matter who you agree with) that is there job. I didn't even say I disagree with who Trump is going to appoint. I'm just saying that both sides of the aisle will make interruption of the law. You just happen to agree with the side who Trump is likely to appoint.

 

[WV Mountaineer]

Agreed, but if you believe conservative justices aren't doing interpretation you are mistaken. Both sides are interpreting a 240 year old document. You just happen to agree with the side who will be the majority.

In post 43, I said exactly what you implied I didn't. I'll quote it for you. "I’m not seeing where many conservative judges are insinuating it’s their role to make law versus decide it’s interpretation. ". Go back and see for yourself.




As to the Constitution up to interpretation. I meant it wasn't a "breathing, living" document. Not that it wasn't open to court interpretation.