Supreme court justice Scalia dead!

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, it was a simple opinion all right. He yearned for the country to be back in 1779.

He voted against The Voting rights Act and affirmative action. He also dismantled the campaign finance laws that have resulted in the current situation of massive corporate involvement in politics.

Its just lucky he never got to revisit Row V Wade.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

vetinari

I'd be surprised if the Senate doesn't vote on an Obama nominee.
Bork for instance got a vote.

On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork's confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT)) voting against him

When was the last time you had no vote on a Supreme Court vacancy for a year?

If it's blocked for the rest of Obama's term, what happens if the next president is Republican? The next senate probably won't have 60 Republicans so I'd be surprised if the Democrats didn't filibuster any nominee. We could have a split court indefinitely.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

"Garden Variety smear campaign"?

He was against the Voting Rights Act and Affirmitive Action. Thats hardly a smear.

He voted against Campaign Finance reform. I dont think its a "smear" to say that the McCain/Feingold Act that he dismantled (Judicial activism?) was an attempt to control the ridiculous amount of secretly donated money in US politics.

InTheTrees

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Scalia helped overturn the Campaign Finance reforms, he also overturned The Violence Against Women Act, and the Gun Free School Zones Act.

Isnt that what he would call "judicial activism"?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Scalia helped overturn the Campaign Finance reforms, he also overturned The Violence Against Women Act, and the Gun Free School Zones Act.

Isnt that what he would call "judicial activism"?

I’m sure some would, but others would argue that is not "judicial activism" to invalidate laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the Constitution, because the Constitution has meaning, that that meaning does not change, and that judges are duty bound to determine and give effect to that meaning.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

I’m sure some would, but others would argue that is not "judicial activism" to invalidate laws that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the Constitution, because the Constitution has meaning, that that meaning does not change, and that judges are duty bound to determine and give effect to that meaning.

Which is why in 2005 Scalia voted against stopping the execution of minors in the US.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

True. Scalia's dissent in Roper v Simmons argued that the execution of minors was constitutional on the grounds that it wasn't considered cruel and unusual punishment at the time of enactment of the Bill of Rights.

I think that says all that needs to be said about the judicial principle of originalism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That formed part of his dissent, yes. But it was also grounded in originalism, as was his dissent in Atkins v Virginia, where he argued that it was constitutional to execute mentally retarded people, because it would not have been considered cruel and unusual to do so in the eighteenth century, when such issues were much more poorly understood.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Skylinehead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35823234

Obama nominates Merrick Garland. Seems moderate enough, from the little I've read about him, so it could work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Manach

Hopefully both sides will recognise the candidate (from media reports) as a middle of the road type and accept the effective draw between the executive and legislative.

LuckyLloyd

A brilliant choice. Not confirming him will show the Republicans up as obstructionist and spiteful.

oscarBravo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A brilliant choice. Not confirming him will show the Republicans up as obstructionist and spiteful.

You called?

Mitch McConnell: Nope, We Still Won't Consider Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

eire4

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

A brilliant choice. Not confirming him will show the Republicans up as obstructionist and spiteful.

It is begining to look like Obama called their bluff with this nomination which looks like a choice the base of neither party would be happy with.

vetinari

Merrick Garland is a good tactic by Obama for the election.
I think Obama would be very surprised if Garland gets confirmed.

It does put the Republicans in a quandary though.
Hillary or Bernie would nominate someone much more liberal if they get elected.
It's a complete guess as to who Trump might nominate.

Overall you'd have to say the Democrats would be favorites to win a general election against Trump.
So if you're the Republicans, waiting for the next president is a risky proposition.

Overheal

A big argument from the Right is that Obama shouldn't be allowed to appoint yet another liberal justice to the court, locking the court for decades, bla bla bla... as if a president should only appoint 2 justices.

Well there's something wrong with that: the court is evenly split between Bush/Bush/Reagan appointees and Clinton/Obama appointees. Also, Nixon appointed 3, Reagan appointed 4. So that's not unprecedented. Further back, Eisenhower appointed 5, and FDR given his 4 terms unsurprisingly appointed 8. 3 of whom died in office from heart attacks/stroke but did I mention I'm the CT mod? Anyway, they say they don't want the court locked up "for decades" with liberals. Which makes the next point so amusing.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/senator-orin-hatch-reverses-merrick-garland-nomination/

On March 13th, Republican U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch [R-UT] said of Obama’s process to nominate a replacement for the deceased former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, “This is all about the election. The President told me several times he’s going to nominate a moderate, but I don’t believe him. He could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that.”

...

In 1997, Hatch had said of Garland, “I know him personally, I know his integrity, I know his legal ability, I know of his honesty, I know of his acumen. He belongs on the Court [of Appeals for the DC Circuit].”

Which seems to suggest that nominating Garland would be agreeable to the Republicans - so Obama did exactly that. Senator Hatch?

“I remain convinced that the best way for the Senate to do its job is to conduct the confirmation process after this toxic Presidential election season is over.”

In other words they want to wait to do confirmation hearings, bizarrely, until the lame duck session between the general election and the inauguration - which makes absolutely no sense. An obvious ploy to get to November and say "it's too late to go through this process".

Before Obama named the appointee garland went on the air and threw around a bunch of rhetoric about "first time in a hundred years" etc. etc. to try and set some bizarre precedent that this situation is somehow unique, and not about blacktracking.

Overheal

Oh and there's another wrinkle in the GOP's arguments: they had complete control of the court for decades!In fact this is the only period since Whittaker resigned that Republicans have NOT had a majority.

Working backwards from 1991 to the start of the Nixon Administration, the GOP appointed 10 justices to the Supreme Court:

Clarence Thomas (1991)
David Souter (1990)
Anthony Kennedy (1988)
Antonin Scalia (1986)
Sandra Day O'Connor (1981)
John Paul Stevens (1975)
William Rehnquist (1972)
Lewis F Powell Jr. (1972)
Harry Blackmun (1970)
Warren Burger (1969)

And thats even overlooking the fact that Eisenhower appointed 5 justices in the 50s, 4 of whom were still serving throughout some of that timeline. Prior to this, Truman and 4 term president FDR had established a Democratic appointed court. JFK appointed Byron White and Arthur Goldberg both in 1962, and LBJ appointed Abe Fortas (1965) and Thurgood Marshall (1967) the only Democratic appointees between 1949 and 1993.

Which explains a rationale behind why Biden might have been outraged at the prospect of appointing yet another GOP judge to the court in 1992 - a speech by which McConnell and his cronies are now calling "the Biden Rule" because - god forbid, Clinton was able to appoint 2 justices, Obama was able to appoint 2 justices (how dare he! Nixon only got to pick out 4!), and now for the first time since the Space Age, there is no longer a conservative majority on the supreme court, which of course, if you're a Republican, means the sky is literally dripping with flaming blood. And god forbid the Democrats should be able to appoint 5 judges to the court, it would be all out chaos. Satan would literally rise from the earth and start showering gay couples with birth control pills.

So, with that in mind, it should come as no ****ing surprise that they are doing everything they can think of to dodge, duck, dip, dive, dodge, filibuster, dodge, and dodge having to perform a hearing for someone that the filthy Democrats want in the seat! I thought it was interesting anyway, nobody has really mentioned that in the news; the Republicans would rather spit out strong-sounding-yet-flaccid soundbytes how this is the first election year this or that in 130 years bla bla bla without pointing out 'hey, we have enjoyed majority control of the Supreme Court for two or three generations'. But it's not bad when 'they' have the control, it's only catastrophic when 'the liberals' have any control. These Republicans have never even lived in an age where there wasn't a Republican majority in the Supreme Court.

edit: full breakdown of all justices appointed since FDR:

D - Elana Kagan (2010)
D - Sonia Sotomayor (2009)
R - Samuel Alito (2006)
R - John G. Roberts (2005)
D - Stephen Breyer (1994)
D - Ruth Bader Ginsberg (1993)
R - Clarence Thomas (1991)
R - David Souter (1990)
R - Anthony Kennedy (1988)
R - Antonin Scalia (1986)
R - Sandra Day O'Connor (1981)
R - John Paul Stevens (1975)
R - William Rehnquist (1972)
R - Lewis F Powell Jr (1972)
R - Harry Blackmun (1970)
R - Warren E Burger (1969)
D - Thurgood Marshall (1967)
D - Abe Fortas (1965)
D - Arthur Goldberg (1962)
D - Byron White (1962)
R - Potter Stewart (1958)
R - Charles Evans Whittaker (1957)
R - William J Brennan Jr (1956)
R - John Marshall Harlan II (1955)
R - Earl Warren (1953)

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

February 1998, Kennedy and the GOP confirm Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court at this same time in Reagan's last term, as Obama: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-supreme-court-antonin-scalia_us_56bfcde2e4b08ffac1259285

McConnel 2005: "The president, and the president alone, should nominated judges"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/13/1484831/-Sen-Mitch-McConnell-in-2005-The-President-and-the-President-alone-nominates-judges

McConnel 2008

McConnel 2012 invokes so-called Thurmond Rule: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_151/GOP-Begins-Judge-Blockade-215369-1.html?pos=hln

McConnel 2016: “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice [...] Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President."

It seems as though the GOP's kneejerk reactions to Scalia's passing will end up betraying them. Obama hasn't even announced an appointee and already the partisans are flying out of the walls to shut it down.

He's now using a "Biden Rule" argument in relation to a 1992 speech by Joe Biden that the President (GHWB) should be advised to wait to begin nomination and confirmation hearings until after a general election - in the lame duck session. Although also he hinted any nominee wouldn't get confirmed unless they got a nod from .... The National Rifle Association.

http://www.inquisitr.com/2908684/mitch-mcconnell-reveals-what-it-will-take-to-approve-obamas-scotus-pick/

Oh, except he then when on to say he shouldn't be considered after the general election, either.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/21/us/politics/merrick-garland-supreme-court-mitch-mcconnell.html?_r=0

Having himself written during Nixon's time that Supreme Court appointments should not be politicized:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/02/17/mitch-mcconnell-argued-republican-president-elected-impact-scotus.html

Even FOX was forced to take McConnell to task on his incredible levels of hypocrisy:

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/03/20/fox-news-stabs-mitch-mcconnell-gop-destroys-scotus-nominee.html

WALLACE: I am going to ask Mr. McDonough about the Biden rule in a moment. But, frankly, isn’t there a fair amount of hypocrisy on both sides here?

Right now, President Obama is calling for an up or down vote on his nominee. You oppose that. But back in 2005 when George W. Bush was president, you made exactly the same argument that Obama’s making now. Take a look, sir.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MCCONNELL: In a democracy, an up or down vote should be given to a president’s judicial nominees. It’s not complicated. It’s simple. It’s fair. It worked for 229 years. And it has served us well.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Senator, if an up or down vote for a judicial nominee was simple, fair, and a principle that has served us for 229 years — I guess now it’s over 230 years now — if that’s true then, it is still true?

MCCONNELL: Yes. We’re talking apples and oranges. That comment was not in connection with the Supreme Court vacancy.

What we’re talking about here here’s a factual situation —

WALLACE: But it’s still a judicial nominee, sir.

MCCONNELL: The Supreme Court — no, they’re not the same. The Supreme Court is very different from the other courts.

What we’re talking about here is a Supreme Court vacancy in the middle of a presidential election year made by a lame duck president who is on the way out the door and the impact that will have on this court for the next quarter of a century. That is the issue before us right now.

He's an infuriating hypocrite that, unfortunately, wont be up for re-election until 2020. Or you know, unless someone kicks his teeth in or something before then.

In the clip McConnell blatantly reveals what this obstructionism is about, nothing about the principles of how to pick a judge, at 2:36.

"Barack Obama calling this judge a moderate doesn't make him a moderate. This judge would move the court dramatically to the left, he's enthusiastically supported by MoveOn.org [Because, Mitch, they ran a big fat petition for you to do your ****ing job, you complete ****ing tool] I don't think they'd be signing up and be also all this enthusiastic about a liberal judge [sic]"

This is all about politics, and nothing about constitutional principles.

Billy86

McConnell is one of the very biggest scumbags in all of US politics, and the fact he could come out back in 2012 and openly say their number one goal was to make Obama a one term president (as opposed to actually bettering the company or serving the people in any way) just shows exactly why US politics are where they are today.

eire4

Billy86 wrote: »

McConnell is one of the very biggest scumbags in all of US politics, and the fact he could come out back in 2012 and openly say their number one goal was to make Obama a one term president (as opposed to actually bettering the company or serving the people in any way) just shows exactly why US politics are where they are today.

I agree with you about McConnell and what he said. But to be fair its way beyond just him. The US congress and government is essentially an Oligarchy at this point. They simply do not represent the people of America or their best interests. They represent the wealthy individuals and corporations who have bought them and that is all they care about other then in an overall general sense maintaining the current status quo of the 2 party monopoly on power.

Amerika

We’ve had our first 8-person Supreme Court 4-4 tied decision.

...And the world fails to end.

News at 11.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

We’ve had our first 8-person Supreme Court 4-4 tied decision.

...And the world fails to end.

News at 11.

If anyone had claimed the world would end, you might have a point.

It does lead to the interesting situation that, in effect, the Court may as well not have heard the case: the lower court's decision stands. What's interesting about that is that different federal appeals courts have ruled differently on the issue, which in turn now means that federal law will be applied differently in different states.

It's not ideal.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

If anyone had claimed the world would end, you might have a point.

It does lead to the interesting situation that, in effect, the Court may as well not have heard the case: the lower court's decision stands. What's interesting about that is that different federal appeals courts have ruled differently on the issue, which in turn now means that federal law will be applied differently in different states.

It's not ideal.

Correct that the outcome of Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore leaves in place a lower court ruling to stand for the time being. As for ‘federal law will be applied differently in different states;’ are you sure about that?

And Sonia Sotomayor should be removed from the court IMO. Is she hearing cases or arguing them herself? In the case for Puerto Rico’s legal fight to let its municipalities and utilities declare bankruptcy in order to resolve its overwhelming debt problems, she spoke 45 times leaving no doubt that she was speaking as an advocate.

'First, Sotomayor walked Puerto Rico’s attorney, Christopher Landau, through his own argument with a precision that exceeded his own. She answered other justices’ hostile questions for him, better than he did. Then she dominated Matthew McGill, the lawyer for the creditors of Puerto Rico’s electrical utility, who are fighting the bankruptcy bid. In the second half of the argument, the other justices mostly stood by and let her go at him.'

Beforehand, it seamed Puerto Rico had no chance to win its legal fight. Then after Sotomayor’s exhibition, suddenly Justice Kagan and Justice Breyer change sides.

K-9

Where is that quote from?

PopePalpatine

Probably from here: www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-23/sotomayor-helps-puerto-rico-argue-its-bankruptcy-case&usg=AFQjCNF6Iy8AjYPpS_cqRGx_lQuwR2GXlQ&sig2=A5FaPoLseS-3h8uorxHMsg

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

And Sonia Sotomayor should be removed from the court IMO. Is she hearing cases or arguing them herself? In the case for Puerto Rico’s legal fight to let its municipalities and utilities declare bankruptcy in order to resolve its overwhelming debt problems, she spoke 45 times leaving no doubt that she was speaking as an advocate.

I think Republicans have enjoyed many decades of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and we're now on the cusp of major change in the USA when the court changes to a liberal majority.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Where is that quote from?

Sorry, I should have linked the Bloomberg article.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-23/sotomayor-helps-puerto-rico-argue-its-bankruptcy-case

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think Republicans have enjoyed many decades of a conservative majority on the Supreme Court and we're now on the cusp of major change in the USA when the court changes to a liberal majority.

Yeah, for the time being it will probably be more liberal by the end of this year, and when a Republican takes the Presidency it will swing back to conservative. Let's hope the SCOTUS doesn't do too much damage to the US Constitution in the meantime.

InTheTrees

There was a major victory for trade unions today in a case involving the collection of union dues.

Up to scalia's death it had been assumed this decision would go against the unions which would have been a major blow to the way they operate and fund themselves. Now the court is tied 4-4 and they have passed it back to the lower court which confirms the Union position.

WASHINGTON — Conservatives bent on crippling the power of public employee unions lost their best opportunity in years Tuesday when the Supreme Court deadlocked over a challenge to the fees those unions collect from non-members.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/29/supreme-court-public-employee-unions-mandatory-fees-scalia/81123772/

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Yeah, for the time being it will probably be more liberal by the end of this year, and when a Republican takes the Presidency it will swing back to conservative. Let's hope the SCOTUS doesn't do too much damage to the US Constitution in the meantime.

The SCOTUS has been doing nothing but damage to that document for decades now as is.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

The SCOTUS has been doing nothing but damage to that document for decades now as is.

Wong. The court has tried, until now, to ensure that the government can’t be too strong. With Obama’s pick the view will become one that the US Constitution is a living document, and therefore everything will interpreted by our courts, which is essentially ignoring the Constitution.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

With Obama’s pick the view will become one that the US Constitution is a living document, and therefore everything will interpreted by our courts, which is essentially ignoring the Constitution.

Regarding the constitution as a living document is "essentially" ignoring the constitution?

If the constitution isnt a "living" document than how come there's procedures for amending it?

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Wong. The court has tried, until now, to ensure that the government can’t be too strong. With Obama’s pick the view will become one that the US Constitution is a living document, and therefore everything will interpreted by our courts, which is essentially ignoring the Constitution.

I would recommend you look up McCleskey vs. Kemp, Kelo vs. New London, Morrison vs. Olson, Buckley vs. Valeo, Chevron vs. Natural Resources and all the other times they've sh@t on the constitution.

Everything you are worried about happening here, has been happening for decades already.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

There was a major victory for trade unions today in a case involving the collection of union dues.

Up to scalia's death it had been assumed this decision would go against the unions which would have been a major blow to the way they operate and fund themselves. Now the court is tied 4-4 and they have passed it back to the lower court which confirms the Union position.

WASHINGTON — Conservatives bent on crippling the power of public employee unions lost their best opportunity in years Tuesday when the Supreme Court deadlocked over a challenge to the fees those unions collect from non-members.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/03/29/supreme-court-public-employee-unions-mandatory-fees-scalia/81123772/

Yup, the SCOTUS is moving their branch of government into forcing us into becoming more un-American. The tie affirms the lower court ruling that disallows teachers the ability to free themselves of the noose of mandatory union dues fees even when they refused to join the teacher’s union. Viva La Union!

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

I would recommend you look up McCleskey vs. Kemp, Kelo vs. New London, Morrison vs. Olson, Buckley vs. Valeo, Chevron vs. Natural Resources and all the other times they've sh@t on the constitution.

Everything you are worried about happening here, has been happening for decades already.

I don't disagree that the SCOTUS has gotten some things wrong.... like ObamaCare, abortion, etc.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

I don't disagree that the SCOTUS has gotten some things wrong.... like ObamaCare, abortion, etc.

Oh ok, you just want to ignore the ones I pointed out. Got it.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

Oh ok, you just want to ignore the ones I pointed out. Got it.

Didn't know my opinion meant so much. McCleskey vs. Kemp – right. Kelo vs. New London – wrong. Morrison vs. Olson – wrong. Buckley vs. Valeo – right. Chevron vs. Natural Resources - right. A liberal court would have gotten them all wrong IMO.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Yup, the SCOTUS is moving their branch of government into forcing us into becoming more un-American. The tie affirms the lower court ruling that disallows teachers the ability to free themselves of the noose of mandatory union dues fees even when they refused to join the teacher’s union. Viva La Union!

I think you mean Viva Mitch McConnell.

Obama has nominated a moderate judge who may well have sided with the conservatives.
Instead McConnell is gambling that trump or cruz will win the Presidency just because he wants to obstruct Obama.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

I think you mean Viva Mitch McConnell.

Obama has nominated a moderate judge who may well have sided with the conservatives.
Instead McConnell is gambling that trump or cruz will win the Presidency just because he wants to obstruct Obama.

No, I think McConnell is hedging his bet at the current time. If a Republican wins then it’s a no-brainer. If Hillary wins, then they'll rush to nominate Merrick Garland because Hillary Clinton’s litmus test of for nominees seems only aimed at overturning already decided law, and therefore much worse than Garland.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Didn't know my opinion meant so much. McCleskey vs. Kemp – right. Kelo vs. New London – wrong. Morrison vs. Olson – wrong. Buckley vs. Valeo – right. Chevron vs. Natural Resources - right. A liberal court would have gotten them all wrong IMO.

What exactly is your basis for a liberal court being, by default and without any attention paid to those in it, automatically worse in your opinion than a conservative one?

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

What exactly is your basis for a liberal court being, by default and without any attention paid to those in it, automatically worse in your opinion than a conservative one?

I believe Supreme Court Justices should base their rulings on the Constitution’s original meaning rather than on what it means in current times. Liberals believe the court should base its rulings on an understanding of the Constitution’s meaning in current times, which essentially means to ignore the Constitution.

Liberals don’t seem to believe in the Tenth Amendment. ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ They seems to believe a group of 9 men and women know better for us than we, the people, do. A Liberal court seems to have no problem ‘making law,’ which is the job of the Legislature. Rather than shred the Constitution, we have a process to deal with change. It's called amendments to the Constitution. Our forefathers were visionaries in that they understood the world would change, things not envisioned at the time would come about, and designed this process to strike a balance between constant change and the fundamentals that our country was founded upon.

Billy86

It would help if you gave some examples, because as of now you have not and have only appeared to be making assumptions. I have actually given you examples from the conservative versions of the SCOTUS acting against the constitution as you are so worried about doing, and not only did you attempt to quickly brush over them but also ended with "a liberal court would have got them all wrong IMO", which again comes over as projecting as you seem to figure the liberal SCOTUS would do the opposite of the conservative SCOTUS on things you don't like, but would do the same as the conservatives on things you do like.

Maybe they would rip up some decisions though, like the 2010 ruling that has allowed corporations to openly spend unlimited money politically, or the two 2014 rulings, one of which allows legislative bodies to insist on beginning all their meetings with a prayer, while the other allows corporations to refuse contraception on their health plans for 'religious liberty' purposes.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Liberals don’t seem to believe in the Tenth Amendment. ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.’ They seems to believe a group of 9 men and women know better for us than we, the people, do.

There's a system of "Checks and Balances" in the US system. There's three branches of government;

The Executive (the president), The Leglislative (Congress) and the Judicial (The Courts).

Each one has (limited) power to trump any of the others.

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I believe Supreme Court Justices should base their rulings on the Constitution’s original meaning rather than on what it means in current times. Liberals believe the court should base its rulings on an understanding of the Constitution’s meaning in current times, which essentially means to ignore the Constitution.

There's one rather important facet that you're ignoring: the meaning of the Constitution, whether originalist or living document, is open to interpretation. There's precisely one branch of government charged with the responsibility for that interpretation, and that's the Supreme Court.

Now, you can argue (as would I) that the Court sometimes misinterprets the Constitution, but in a sense that very argument is meaningless, because the Constitution has no other meaning than the one the Court says it has.

Amerika

Billy86 wrote: »

It would help if you gave some examples, because as of now you have not and have only appeared to be making assumptions. I have actually given you examples from the conservative versions of the SCOTUS acting against the constitution as you are so worried about doing, and not only did you attempt to quickly brush over them but also ended with "a liberal court would have got them all wrong IMO", which again comes over as projecting as you seem to figure the liberal SCOTUS would do the opposite of the conservative SCOTUS on things you don't like, but would do the same as the conservatives on things you do like.

Maybe they would rip up some decisions though, like the 2010 ruling that has allowed corporations to openly spend unlimited money politically, or the two 2014 rulings, one of which allows legislative bodies to insist on beginning all their meetings with a prayer, while the other allows corporations to refuse contraception on their health plans for 'religious liberty' purposes.

Most recently the decisions of Kelo v. City of New London and NFIB v. Sebelius were atrocities. Taking of property by the government and giving the property to businesses. And forcing people to buy health care insurance from businesses.

I am mixed on the corporations spending unlimited money politically. On one hand if unions can do it, then why can't corporations? On the other hand, perhaps businesses should give the money to individuals and let them privately donate on political issues (and be able to fire them if they misuse the funds).... at least we'll get more tax revenues that way.

You haven't addressed the 10th amendment. Do you have something against it?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's one rather important facet that you're ignoring: the meaning of the Constitution, whether originalist or living document, is open to interpretation. There's precisely one branch of government charged with the responsibility for that interpretation, and that's the Supreme Court.

Now, you can argue (as would I) that the Court sometimes misinterprets the Constitution, but in a sense that very argument is meaningless, because the Constitution has no other meaning than the one the Court says it has.

Then you can argue that everything is open to the interpretation of 9 politically nominated justices, as long as they make their rulings sound good, and therefore why even have a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments? Why not just let everything be decided by the courts?

Again, what is it about the 10th Amendment that people don't seem to understand?