Bernard Gui Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 (edited) Can anyone truly be objective about the original meaning of the Constitution? Thread closed in 5 - 4 -3 ——- Edited June 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui 3
Garden Girl Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 (edited) On 6/28/2018 at 2:51 PM, jkwilliams said: Same here. I'm not a fan of Mike Lee. Not saying he's a bad person (at least politically he seems to have a lot of integrity), but he's way too right-wing for me--and I'm pretty darned conservative. I also worry that packing the court with conservatives is likely to create an activist court, which I don't like. Do you actually believe if the situation were reversed that the dems wouldn't try to pack the court with liberals... GG Edited June 30, 2018 by Garden Girl 1
Jeanne Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, Garden Girl said: Do you actually believe if the situation were reversed that the dems wouldn't try to pack the court with liberals... GG You know what?? The democrats I used to know don't exist anymore...at least the prominent ones. I am so confused and messed up in the political world anymore that I don't know what is best....or not. Scary is the word I am thinking....😒 1
USU78 Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: You know what?? The democrats I used to know don't exist anymore...at least the prominent ones. I am so confused and messed up in the political world anymore that I don't know what is best....or not. Scary is the word I am thinking....😒 Do they not presently exist or did they never exist, hiding their true faces?
Jeanne Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 5 minutes ago, USU78 said: Do they not presently exist or did they never exist, hiding their true faces? I dunno...what are true faces anymore??? I used to be true blue Democrat...but Maxine Waters and Hillary are not the faces I want to see! 2
USU78 Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I dunno...what are true faces anymore??? I used to be true blue Democrat...but Maxine Waters and Hillary are not the faces I want to see! There was a sea change when wjc rallied the troops in support of perjury. Snide cryptonazi references of the 50s and 60s have morphed into something horrible to behold.
Anijen Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 (edited) On 6/28/2018 at 4:51 PM, jkwilliams said: I also worry that packing the court with conservatives is likely to create an activist court, which I don't like. A conservative court: Generally, a conservative "packed" court would not create an activist court. An originalist or textualist of the Constitution would have the polar opposite effect of creating an activist court. All the conservative justices on the Court currently three of them [Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch] hold to a conservative ideal, they subscribe to an originalist or a textualist theory. IOW they want to adhere to original intent of the framers or the textual intent of the document. This is also called Judicial restraint, because the justices restrain themselves from putting in their own opinions and only rely on law and not opinion. Judicial restraint is opposite of judicial activism. An activist court: An activist court: is a court that does not consider the Constitution, the framers intent or its text. An activist judge will use his/her own opinions and decide from the opinions she/he holds. When an activist judge does this they are basically creating and causing litigation intertwined with their personal beliefs and opinions and then they try to connect those beliefs and opinions to the law. A Justice that uses judicial activism will actively use present day trends, and their own opinion and apply it to the law, thus, are active in their judicial decisions. The Court: When you have a majority of judicial activist justices, then you have an activist court. A majority of conservative justices would not make an "activist court", rather a majority of conservative judges would make a conservative court. Edited June 30, 2018 by Anijen 4
Anijen Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 An originalist does NOT mean they will be held back because times have changed. You might have heard the words; "there wasn't __________ in 1787 so we have to use today's trends" etc.. For example you might hear; "they didn't have unions or abortion in 1776." Actually there were unions and abortion back then, but that is another post. A justice that holds to originalism or textulism is not barred from making incredible precedential court rulings. They do this by restraining themselves from integrating their opinions into that decision. (Judicial Restraint). An originalist or textualist of the Constitution can and have made some of the most poignant and important decisions in modern days. The Constitution is not a living document in that judges should have to resort to their opinions and then apply their opinions to the law, but the Constitution is a living document in that it can change with the times and takes more than an activist court to do so. The Constitution is a living document vis a vie the amendment process and also, through another branch of government, the legislature. The Constitution specifically grants Congress its most important power-the power to make laws (see Article 1 sec 8 of the Constitution). Once the law is made, a law can be tweaked, refined, reformed, or even cancelled. This is one way the Constitution is a living document in which Congress will make laws and judges will interpret the meaning of those laws. But the Supreme Court and other lower judges (i.e. Article 3 Judges) it is not within their power to make laws. That is in effect what an activist court does. This judicial activism occurs when a judge or judges write their own subjective policy preferences into their legal decisions rather than apply the constitution according to the framers original intent or from the text of the document. Subjective means: based or influenced by personal feelings, taste, or opinion. 1
Duncan Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 36 minutes ago, Anijen said: A conservative court: Generally, a conservative "packed" court would not create an activist court. An originalist or textualist of the Constitution would have the polar opposite effect of creating an activist court. All the conservative justices on the Court currently three of them [Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch] hold to a conservative ideal, they subscribe to an originalist or a textualist theory. IOW they want to adhere to original intent of the framers or the textual intent of the document. This is also called Judicial restraint, because the justices restrain themselves from putting in their own opinions and only rely on law and not opinion. Judicial restraint is opposite of judicial activism. An activist court: An activist court: is a court that does not consider the Constitution, the framers intent or its text. An activist judge will use his/her own opinions and decide from the opinions she/he holds. When an activist judge does this they are basically creating and causing litigation intertwined with their personal beliefs and opinions and then they try to connect those beliefs and opinions to the law. A Justice that uses judicial activism will actively use present day trends, and their own opinion and apply it to the law, thus, are active in their judicial decisions. The Court: When you have a majority of judicial activist justices, then you have an activist court. A majority of conservative justices would not make an "activist court", rather a majority of conservative judges would make a conservative court. In other words it's the Hawkeye Vs. Burns principle. Hawkeye has a heart and would do anything to save a person whereas as Burns is in it for the money and gives up quickly, because medically this doesn't work so why bother sweating about it, but that's only true if he knows what should or shouldn't do. Hawkeye goes above and beyond to save someone, regardless of the cost.
Anijen Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Duncan said: In other words it's the Hawkeye Vs. Burns principle. Hawkeye has a heart and would do anything to save a person whereas as Burns is in it for the money and gives up quickly, because medically this doesn't work so why bother sweating about it, but that's only true if he knows what should or shouldn't do. Hawkeye goes above and beyond to save someone, regardless of the cost. I sense you are trying to say conservatives are Burns and non-conservatives are Hawkeye. Am I correct in this assumption? Any doctor who "goes above and beyond to save someone, regardless of the cost." is a good human being. A conservative judge can also be just as good human being as a non-conservative judge. Furthermore, both the conservative judge and the non-conservative judge can arrive to the exact same correct conclusion with each other. The only difference is a conservative judge such as Gorsuch will use the text or original intent of the Constitution to arrive at that conclusion. There should be no labeling of good vs bad, ("has a heart" vs "in it for the money."). Labels like those applied to either side does not help and are not conducive in solving problems, but actually can be more devisive than helpful. I know the Apostles all are not of the same political thought, I also know that they don'y apply labels to those who disagree with them. Yet, they can come to the same conclusions as each other. Just my two cents. 3
Duncan Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 3 minutes ago, Anijen said: I sense you are trying to say conservatives are Burns and non-conservatives are Hawkeye. Am I correct in this assumption? Any doctor who "goes above and beyond to save someone, regardless of the cost." is a good human being. A conservative judge can also be just as good human being as a non-conservative judge. Furthermore, both the conservative judge and the non-conservative judge can arrive to the exact same correct conclusion with each other. The only difference is a conservative judge such as Gorsuch will use the text or original intent of the Constitution to arrive at that conclusion. There should be no labeling of good vs bad, ("has a heart" vs "in it for the money."). Labels like those applied to either side does not help and are not conducive in solving problems, but actually can be more devisive than helpful. I know the Apostles all are not of the same political thought, I also know that they don'y apply labels to those who disagree with them. Yet, they can come to the same conclusions as each other. Just my two cents. You had mentioned "activist judges" that has implications. this whole issue is what is on trial here, the person or the law? what is good for the person or society vs. what is good for the law or what does the US constitution say or whatever from wherever country, it's a tricky balance to uphold the law while somehow benefitting the person/society
Anijen Posted June 30, 2018 Posted June 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, Duncan said: You had mentioned "activist judges" that has implications. I only mentioned "activist judges" in my reply to jkwilliams when he said; "I also worry that packing the court with conservatives is likely to create an activist court, which I don't like." In my post I tried to explain why packing the court with conservative judges would not create an activist court. Activist court, activist judge, conservative court, or conservative judge are not labels they are the actual words to describe the manner of judicial theory that a judge uses. Those terms are neither bad or good and are descriptive in nature. "Has a heart" or "only in it for the money" does not describe the skill or manner in which the doctor performs, but why the doctor performs. Those terms, in my opinion, are not helpful, contraily they are devisive. Quote This whole issue is what is on trial here, the person or the law? It seems from all the news (and I do not watch just one channel) that a person is on trial here, a person no one knows (perhaps Trump only), yet this unnamed person is already being criticized and at worse vilified. The law, is not on trial here, but it is a future issue. President trump could nominate the most conservative of all judges, Roe v. Wade could be overturned. That does not mean abortion will be outlawed at all, the worse thing is that abortion would be left to the states to legislate. There is no way that states like California, New York, Illinois, (and others) will stop abortion, although it might happen in Utah or Texas, but even then it would be a very long drawn out process. Quote what is good for the person or society vs. what is good for the law Generally laws are made for both the moral progression of the society and for the individual. Quote or what does the US constitution say or whatever from wherever country, it's a tricky balance to uphold the law while somehow benefitting the person/society I completely agree. It is a tricky balance and will take some very wise men/women to find an agreeable solution. However, even then there will be some very upset people, no matter how the law is decided, via conservative judge or an activist judge (even if the court is unanimous or a 5 to 4 vote), there is going to be some upset people. 2
carbon dioxide Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 Mike Lee would be a good choice but he will NOT get the nomination based on one simple reason. The senate is currently 51 to 49 with Senator McCain sort of out of commission. Trump needs all the votes he can get to get this nomination through. I don't see how Lee would be able to vote for himself and if he is not allowed, how does Trump get his nomination through without the votes? The margins are too thin for Trump to nominate him.
kllindley Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 22 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: Mike Lee would be a good choice but he will NOT get the nomination based on one simple reason. The senate is currently 51 to 49 with Senator McCain sort of out of commission. Trump needs all the votes he can get to get this nomination through. I don't see how Lee would be able to vote for himself and if he is not allowed, how does Trump get his nomination through without the votes? The margins are too thin for Trump to nominate him. Pence tiebreaks 50 to 49 with McCain and Lee abstaining.
carbon dioxide Posted July 1, 2018 Posted July 1, 2018 37 minutes ago, kllindley said: Pence tiebreaks 50 to 49 with McCain and Lee abstaining. That only works if all the other republicans vote to confirm and that may not happen. With little wiggle room, I can't see Trump taking a vote off the table for Lee when there are other qualified judges that he can pick from.
Anijen Posted July 2, 2018 Posted July 2, 2018 20 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: Mike Lee would be a good choice but he will NOT get the nomination based on one simple reason. The senate is currently 51 to 49 with Senator McCain sort of out of commission. Trump needs all the votes he can get to get this nomination through. I don't see how Lee would be able to vote for himself and if he is not allowed, how does Trump get his nomination through without the votes? The margins are too thin for Trump to nominate him. I think I read somewhere that if Mike Lee is selected, that selection does not mean he cannot vote. He still could vote for himself as he is a Senator.
smac97 Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 On 7/1/2018 at 7:45 PM, Anijen said: I think I read somewhere that if Mike Lee is selected, that selection does not mean he cannot vote. He still could vote for himself as he is a Senator. Yes, that is my understanding as well.
smac97 Posted July 5, 2018 Author Posted July 5, 2018 Ted Cruz is all-out in favor of Sen. Lee. Hmm... Thanks, -Smac
VAUFLDS Posted July 6, 2018 Posted July 6, 2018 On 7/1/2018 at 2:19 AM, carbon dioxide said: That only works if all the other republicans vote to confirm and that may not happen. With little wiggle room, I can't see Trump taking a vote off the table for Lee when there are other qualified judges that he can pick from. Susan Collins of Maine has already provided some cause for Republican concern. Trump could easily lose her vote if he picks someone with a very socially conservative track record..
Recommended Posts