Law Justice Kennedy Retires!!! New SCOTUS justice to be announced 9PM Monday, July 9th

[waiguoren]

It's the job of Congress to enact legislation protecting worker's rights if that is the will of the people. The judiciary doesn't have that power.

Well dissenting decisions prove you completely wrong.

 

[Gregolian]

Well talking to my buddies before the election a few didn't like Clinton and mused about not voting cause we live in NJ. Most of them vote left but are not registered (like myself). But some of us believe we should always vote no matter what. The idea of not voting because of x reason is wrong IMO. If I thought this way and I talked and chatted about not voting and hating Clinton and so on to others (on the phone, social media, forum, etc..) I am helping to spread that idea that my vote doesn't count when it does theoretically. Thinking this way creates doubts to others and it may reach people that can actually have an effect on the outcome.

One of my best friends who works in NJ but still has his license in PA (mother lives there so cheaper car insurance) didn't vote for example. He thought PA was no longer a swing state and said "meh.. I don't need to go back and vote". Another buddy of mine was a huge Bernie supporter and was so pissed he refused to vote for Hillary even though I told him what the risk were (immigration, SCOTUS, etc...). He refused to listen and didn't vote in NJ.

Everyone should vote. I voted for George W Bush twice in NJ. my vote didn't matter during those elections but it mattered to me. And that's how everyone should think regardless of whether it affects the election directly or not.

I mean I get that argument but you can see why some of us in states that never swing can't take the national level stuff seriously I'm sure.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

Everyone has a bias.

Thomas/Gorsuch attempt to interpret law the way it was written.

Ginsburg/Sotomayor attempt to change the law to fit their preferences.

That's an important distinction, right?

If Mississippi enacted a law allowing public tar and feathering as a punishment, Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch/Trump's next choice would all say its fits within originalist/textualist interpretation of the 8th amendment.

Point being, originalism can lead to absolutely atrocious decisions. See also, Dred Scott.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

 

[waiguoren]

No, it's not. But I don't call decisions I disagree with, "enacting law" from the bench. I disagree on the merits. The entire Federalists philosophy is a sham, and a bulwark against progressive ideas, regardless of merit.

You're changing the subject and I don't think you realize it.

The disagreement between @KONG-D'SNT-TAP and me was on the narrow question of whether the judiciary enacts laws. The answer is patently no, which is why I was confident that @KONG-D'SNT-TAP is all alone as the only War Room poster who believes that.

Now let's move on. First of all, no offense but you need to brush up on your US history. You are using big-f "Federalism" to describe my views, which is the opposite of the truth. I am a Democratic-Republican. In my view, the Federalists (Hamilton and crew) are largely responsible for most of the problems of our nation. If you had been alive in 1800, you would undoubtedly be a Federalist, and I would be fighting your every move alongside Madison and Jefferson.

 

[HomerThompson]

You're changing the subject and I don't think you realize it.

The disagreement between @KONG-D'SNT-TAP and me was on the narrow question of whether the judiciary enacts laws. The answer is patently no, which is why I was confident that @KONG-D'SNT-TAP is all alone as the only War Room poster who believes that.

Now let's move on. First of all, no offense but you need to brush up on your US history. You are using big-f "Federalism" to describe my views, which is the opposite of the truth. I am a Democratic-Republican. In my view, the Federalists (Hamilton and crew) are largely responsible for most of the problems of our nation. If you had been alive in 1800, you would undoubtedly be a Federalist, and I would be fighting your every move alongside Madison and Jefferson.

I'm talking specifically about the views of The Federalist Society. I'm not speaking historically.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

@waiguoren
Okay and where did I post about the Supreme Court writing legislation. You're just making shit up you hack

 

[waiguoren]

This is a great day in US history. I wish Justice Kennedy a long and happy retirement.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I'm talking specifically about the views of The Federalist Society. I'm not speaking historically.

Lets not forget I never said anything like hes claiming. He's blatantly trolling and lying.

 

[PolishHeadlock]

I wonder if this could actually cause Robert's to drift to the Left.

 

[waiguoren]

If Mississippi enacted a law allowing public tar and feathering as a punishment, Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch/Trump's next choice would all say its fits within originalist/textualist interpretation of the 8th amendment.

That might be true. What's the problem?

See also, Dred Scott.

What is your specific issue with the jurisprudence in the Dred Scott case?

 

[GSP_37]

Womens better have their questionable sex and accompanying abortions now before it becomes inconvenient to do so in US of A.

 

[Teppodama]

The creepy thing is that is likely his O face.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I wonder if this could actually cause Robert's to drift to the Left.

That's really the only glimmer of possible hope for social liberals at this point. He's consistently ruled otherwise in dissents on all previous cases though (SSM, abortion in particular). The chances of his changing stances on those issues is small.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

We can use your guns to perform the abortion. That's called "compromise."

LOL! How about a judge like that. “Abortions are still legal, but they have to be done with a gun. Meanwhile, guns are still legal, but they can only be used for abortions”.

Everybody wins! <Lmaoo>

 

[Teppodama]

LOL! How about a judge like that. “Abortions are still legal, but they have to be done with a gun. Meanwhile, guns are still legal, but they can only be used for abortions”.

Everybody wins! <Lmaoo>

So if you shoot someone after delivery would you consider that a rather late term abortion?

 

[PolishHeadlock]

That's really the only glimmer of possible hope for social liberals at this point. He's consistently ruled otherwise in dissents on all previous cases though (SSM, abortion in particular). The chances of his changing stances on those issues is small.

I could see him allowing a 20 week ban but striking down Heartbeat Bills.

He's very aware of his place in history. So I'm not sure how far right he'll allow the court to get when he has the option.

 

[waiguoren]

Lets not forget I never said anything like hes claiming. He's blatantly trolling and lying.

I wrote, simply and directly: it's the job of the Congress to enact laws, not the judiciary.

Your response was that I am wrong.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

That might be true. What's the problem?

What is your specific issue with the jurisprudence in the Dred Scott case?

I have a problem with a method, the sole method for some, of judicial interpretation of the Constitution that could lead to any number of punishments that were kosher in 1790 being legal in 2018.


Differences in judicial interpretation matter; especially when some Justices only consider originalism. Current Conservative SCOTUS Justices tend to be strict textualists; ie, interpreting the law as an average person would have understood it to mean when it was passed.

Consider the following language from Taney's infamous Dred Scott majority opinion:

"A free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a "citizen" within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States.

5. When the Constitution was adopted, they were not regarded in any of the States as members of the community which constituted the State, and were not numbered among its "people or citizens." Consequently, the special rights and immunities guarantied to citizens do not apply to them. And not being "citizens" within the meaning of the Constitution, they are not entitled to sue in that character in a court of the United States, and the Circuit Court has not jurisdiction in such a suit.

6. The only two clauses in the Constitution which point to this race treat them as persons whom it was morally lawfully to deal in as articles of property and to hold as slaves.

7. Since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of [p394] the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges secured to citizens by that instrument.

8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.

9. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted.

10. The plaintiff having admitted, by his demurrer to the plea in abatement, that his ancestors were imported from Africa and sold as slaves, he is not a citizen of the State of Missouri according to the Constitution of the United States, and was not entitled to sue in that character in the Circuit Court."

You can read the full opinion here:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/60/393

Taney was correct in his ruling if one is strictly adhering to a textualist interpretation of law. This method of interpretation was responsible for the single most destructive court ruling in US history, and directly precipitated its most deadly war.


Justices who consider the Constitution a 'breathing' document (at least not completely static) still consider the plain language of the text, but also consider a society's evolving standards of moral decency. Kennedy was a good example of that (see Roper, Obergefel, Lawrence)

 

[IGIT]

Disagree. I already pointed to one of many examples in my enjoyable dialogue with @KONG-D'SNT-TAP:

Clarence Thomas probably opposes marijuana use. He would probably support laws banning the individual growth and of marijuana.

But in Gonzales v. Raich, he wrote that the federal government has no authority to pass a law banning the production/use of homegrown marijuana. He doesn't let his policy preferences get in the way of his beliefs about the Constitution's meaning.

hello and nice to meet you, waiguoren,

i don't know what Justice Thomas thinks about marijuana use. he was more of an alcoholic, if i remember correctly.

at any rate...

the justices you favor seek to imagine what the framers meant, when they scribed the constitution. it involves a bit of guesswork, of course - since the worldview of the framers (for example, when it comes to women's rights or minority rights) would be considered barbaric in 2018.

the other justices, folks like Kagan and Sotomayor seek to contextualize the framers intent in "2018" terms. it involves a bit of guesswork, of course - since the worldview of the framers (for example, when it comes to women's rights or minority rights) would be considered barbaric in 2018.

they're both basically trying to do the same thing, walguoren.

- IGIT