In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Another opinion on the same soap opera
JamesRK
Member Posts: 25,670 ✭✭✭
Judge Kavanaugh is reputed to be the most moral, honest and upright candidate ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He could have been nominated for Pope. He is also reputed to be the vilest villain and fugitive from justice ever to draw breath as a free man. He could give mean lessons to Simon Legree.
Since I don?t expect to ever do business with or live with a Supreme Court Justice the qualifications I look for in a candidate are:
1. He/she has read the Constitution of the United States of America.
2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
3. He/she follows the Constitution of the United States of America and doesn?t create new law.
What are the qualifications you look for.
Since I don?t expect to ever do business with or live with a Supreme Court Justice the qualifications I look for in a candidate are:
1. He/she has read the Constitution of the United States of America.
2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
3. He/she follows the Constitution of the United States of America and doesn?t create new law.
What are the qualifications you look for.
The road to hell is paved with COMPROMISE.
Comments
Millions of people have a mistaken understanding what "Well Regulated" means. Likewise, people today confuse Ordinance with Ordnance and fuse with Fuze.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I prefer only men on the bench. While Sandra Day O'Connor had good common sense, Ginburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are AFU activists judges.
Women are fine in Family Court where feelings matter, they are worthless in criminal and civil courts where only logic is acceptable. It's not their fault, it's just the way Mother Nature wired their brains.[:I]
I'm sure the girly men here are going into conniption fits so break out their smelling salts. [:p]
Well, since his primary "modus operandi" is precedent, I'm not sure he understands the constitution.
What the Hell are you talking about? If his predecessors made good rulings when compared against the backdrop of the C(Capital C)onstitution, why would anyone but an activist judge change it?
Good law is good law.
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
+1000
I, foolishly, got into a discussion with someone over the phrase "welfare of the state" and the idiot wouldn't let go of the concept of moneys doled out to those in need. I swear, that brick wall had dents in it.
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
Millions of people have a mistaken understanding what "Well Regulated" means. Likewise, people today confuse Ordinance with Ordnance and fuse with Fuze.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I prefer only men on the bench. While Sandra Day O'Connor had good common sense, Ginburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are AFU activists judges.
Women are fine in Family Court where feelings matter, they are worthless in criminal and civil courts where only logic is acceptable. It's not their fault, it's just the way Mother Nature wired their brains.[:I]
I'm sure the girly men here are going into conniption fits so break out their smelling salts. [:p]
Michael, Michael, Michael, I kinda expected to see this reply, but I didn?t expect to see it from you. Understanding what you have read (U. S. Constitution) in eighteenth century English is included in understanding what you have read. It?s redundant to say I understand the Constitution as written in eighteenth century English with the exception of some Amendments.
I agree with you that some Eighteenth Century words have definitions unrelated to what they mean now, but anybody reading those words with twenty-first century meaning didn?t understand what they read.
I stand by: 2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
quote:Originally posted by asphalt cowboy
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
+1000
I, foolishly, got into a discussion with someone over the phrase "welfare of the state" and the idiot wouldn't let go of the concept of moneys doled out to those in need. I swear, that brick wall had dents in it.
I have argued with that same guy. I don?t do that no more. [:D] I know it's they same guy because no two people could be that stupid.
Sometimes when you remind them It isn?t in the Constitution that will shut them up. Usually not. I?s in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution and the context is ?promote the general Welfare?.
quote:Originally posted by mag00
Well, since his primary "modus operandi" is precedent, I'm not sure he understands the constitution.
What the Hell are you talking about? If his predecessors made good rulings when compared against the backdrop of the C(Capital C)onstitution, why would anyone but an activist judge change it?
Good law is good law.
Need I say any more?
Any and all cases to the supreme court only need be judged on what the constitution says, not what any previous judge says.
So the precedent of not following precedent???
Or the precedent of not following the constitution???
I can interpret the constitution just fine, it was written for me and other regular folks as a contract with our government.
I was looking for the requirements to be a supreme court judge member. I don't see where you have to pass the American Bar or have any college education etc.
But by using some of the current terminology, not hard to see how the people got duped.
Honesty, integrity, and humility would be a good start.
Loyalty to God, not men, and a lack of covetousness, as well.
Not given to strong drink, or anger, or bribery.
All those things would be an excellent start, but in the final analysis none of them except ?not given to bribery? should be requirements to be a good Judge or Justice. I suppose it would be possible to take bribes and still make good Constitutional decisions, but it would be far too risky to knowingly accept it. As a rule Judges and Justices have to at least give the appearance of honesty to survive.
As an honest God fearing Christian I would much prefer to have justices with all those attributes, but we live in a nation of laws and men. There is nothing to prevent a justice from being all those things, but not a requirement. I don?t want to assume the role of God because I might be held accountable for all my own decisions.
Remember the followers of ISIS believe they are followers of god. In my opinion they are followers of a false god with legion of demons, but that?s what they honestly believe.
The point I was trying to make is the whole Soap Opera thing is nothing more than a distraction. The question is can we trust a Justice Kavanaugh to make decisions consistent with the U. S. Constitution? That?s all I ask of him or any other Justice.
I have checked out his track record and the answer to your question at least IMHO would be a yes.
Hence, that is exactly why the DEMOCRATs and their PACs are so vehemently in opposition of him.
2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America. As our forefathers intended them to be interpreted, not as the candidates political affiliation interprets it.
3. He/she follows the Constitution of the United States of America and doesn?t create new law.]As our forefathers intended them to be followed as they interpret it. Not as the candidates political affiliation interprets it/
Do you know why judges wear robes ?
A serious question, with a classical answer.
I really don?t know why, but I expect it?s a tradition that goes back through European history to Biblical times. I know Priests wore robes but that wouldn?t translate directly to modern judges.
Now you?ve got me speculating and I?m not very good at guessing. [:D]
I had a book years ago titled The Best Judges Money Can Buy
I think you would have enjoyed that book but unfortunately the last guy I loaned it to decided he need it more than I did.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
Do you know why judges wear robes ?
A serious question, with a classical answer.
I really don?t know why, but I expect it?s a tradition that goes back through European history to Biblical times. I know Priests wore robes but that wouldn?t translate directly to modern judges.
Now you?ve got me speculating and I?m not very good at guessing. [:D]
I had a book years ago titled The Best Judges Money Can Buy
I think you would have enjoyed that book but unfortunately the last guy I loaned it to decided he need it more than I did.
The traditional professions, Priest, Judge, Doctor (teacher)and Educator all wore robes to symbolize the power of life and death associated with their work.
It was to signify that they were covered from the blood that would be shed at their word, or according to their duty. For a judge, it is accepted among judges and the legal profession that some innocent blood will inevitably be shed during the course of their work.
I only asked the question to bring some context to the qualifications scripture lists as proper to a judge.
It is a mistake to presume that those standards would not be the same, today.
This is why I question Kavanaughs disposition as a judge. In the hearings, he kept answering with, precedent blah blah blah.
The constitution really is not that complex. It does not require 20 pages of explanation for a ruling. I ruled, I say so, and that is it.
Precedent is for the LOWER courts, as to not bother the high courts with issues that are settled.
Now instead of that wisdom, we hire legal speaking snake oil salesman. There need not be any wisdom, they just have to play word games.
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
Judge Kavanaugh is reputed to be the most moral, honest and upright candidate ever nominated to the Supreme Court. He could have been nominated for Pope. He is also reputed to be the vilest villain and fugitive from justice ever to draw breath as a free man. He could give mean lessons to Simon Legree.
Since I don?t expect to ever do business with or live with a Supreme Court Justice the qualifications I look for in a candidate are:
1. He/she has read the Constitution of the United States of America.
2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
3. He/she follows the Constitution of the United States of America and doesn?t create new law.
What are the qualifications you look for.
Honesty, integrity, and humility would be a good start.
Loyalty to God, not men, and a lack of covetousness, as well.
Not given to strong drink, or anger, or bribery.
You want that on the Supreme Court, but want the total opposite for president? That's rich since the Swill is the complete polar opposite.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn0mJm8WsAAX2kI.jpg:large
If a "Train" was pulled, I would suspect there were other boys involved too, who are they and is their testimony relevant?
If she definitely remembers Kavanaugh, I would think she could describe his weenie in great detail too, and yet every other detail of 20 men lining up is forgotten.
Appoint the lib to the bench, and if he committed a crime, remove him from office. Just that simple.
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
Millions of people have a mistaken understanding what "Well Regulated" means. Likewise, people today confuse Ordinance with Ordnance and fuse with Fuze.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I prefer only men on the bench. While Sandra Day O'Connor had good common sense, Ginburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are AFU activists judges.
Women are fine in Family Court where feelings matter, they are worthless in criminal and civil courts where only logic is acceptable. It's not their fault, it's just the way Mother Nature wired their brains.[:I]
I'm sure the girly men here are going into conniption fits so break out their smelling salts. [:p]
On the other hand, one can just use basic grammar and the construct of the 2nd Amendment to understand (as emphasized by Scalia in the Heller decision) that:
'The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.'
Getting into the weeds regarding the meaning of 'militia' and 'well regulated' plays into the hands of those that would like the ignorant to believe that the definition of these terms in a throw-away clause actually matter.
It does not matter, as it does not affect the meaning of the operative clause. This type of pseudo-intellectual wordplay is merely a distraction used with the intent of diminishing the true intent and meaning of the 2nd.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
Millions of people have a mistaken understanding what "Well Regulated" means. Likewise, people today confuse Ordinance with Ordnance and fuse with Fuze.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I prefer only men on the bench. While Sandra Day O'Connor had good common sense, Ginburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are AFU activists judges.
Women are fine in Family Court where feelings matter, they are worthless in criminal and civil courts where only logic is acceptable. It's not their fault, it's just the way Mother Nature wired their brains.[:I]
I'm sure the girly men here are going into conniption fits so break out their smelling salts. [:p]
Michael, Michael, Michael, I kinda expected to see this reply, but I didn?t expect to see it from you. Understanding what you have read (U. S. Constitution) in eighteenth century English is included in understanding what you have read. It?s redundant to say I understand the Constitution as written in eighteenth century English with the exception of some Amendments.
I agree with you that some Eighteenth Century words have definitions unrelated to what they mean now, but anybody reading those words with twenty-first century meaning didn?t understand what they read.
I stand by: 2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
quote:Originally posted by asphalt cowboy
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
+1000
I, foolishly, got into a discussion with someone over the phrase "welfare of the state" and the idiot wouldn't let go of the concept of moneys doled out to those in need. I swear, that brick wall had dents in it.
I have argued with that same guy. I don?t do that no more. [:D] I know it's they same guy because no two people could be that stupid.
Sometimes when you remind them It isn?t in the Constitution that will shut them up. Usually not. I?s in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution and the context is ?promote the general Welfare?.
You would be wrong to remind them thusly, James.
The beginning of Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The discussion would be to determine what was meant by 'general welfare of the United States'. Does the general welfare of the United States include taking care of an individual citizen in any manner? Perhaps it does, but it is equally important to understand that there is nothing in the Constitution, particularly after the passage of the 16th Amendment, that prohibits the Federal Government from taking our money and giving direct or indirect aid to any citizen for any reason.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
Millions of people have a mistaken understanding what "Well Regulated" means. Likewise, people today confuse Ordinance with Ordnance and fuse with Fuze.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I prefer only men on the bench. While Sandra Day O'Connor had good common sense, Ginburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are AFU activists judges.
Women are fine in Family Court where feelings matter, they are worthless in criminal and civil courts where only logic is acceptable. It's not their fault, it's just the way Mother Nature wired their brains.[:I]
I'm sure the girly men here are going into conniption fits so break out their smelling salts. [:p]
Michael, Michael, Michael, I kinda expected to see this reply, but I didn?t expect to see it from you. Understanding what you have read (U. S. Constitution) in eighteenth century English is included in understanding what you have read. It?s redundant to say I understand the Constitution as written in eighteenth century English with the exception of some Amendments.
I agree with you that some Eighteenth Century words have definitions unrelated to what they mean now, but anybody reading those words with twenty-first century meaning didn?t understand what they read.
I stand by: 2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
quote:Originally posted by asphalt cowboy
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
+1000
I, foolishly, got into a discussion with someone over the phrase "welfare of the state" and the idiot wouldn't let go of the concept of moneys doled out to those in need. I swear, that brick wall had dents in it.
I have argued with that same guy. I don?t do that no more. [:D] I know it's they same guy because no two people could be that stupid.
Sometimes when you remind them It isn?t in the Constitution that will shut them up. Usually not. I?s in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution and the context is ?promote the general Welfare?.
You would be wrong to remind them thusly, James.
The beginning of Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
16th Amendment
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The discussion would be to determine what was meant by 'general welfare of the United States'. Does the general welfare of the United States include taking care of an individual citizen in any manner? Perhaps it does, but it is equally important to understand that there is nothing in the Constitution, particularly after the passage of the 16th Amendment, that prohibits the Federal Government from taking our money and giving direct or indirect aid to any citizen for any reason.
It says states, not people or citizen. The state is the entity.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
Millions of people have a mistaken understanding what "Well Regulated" means. Likewise, people today confuse Ordinance with Ordnance and fuse with Fuze.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I prefer only men on the bench. While Sandra Day O'Connor had good common sense, Ginburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are AFU activists judges.
Women are fine in Family Court where feelings matter, they are worthless in criminal and civil courts where only logic is acceptable. It's not their fault, it's just the way Mother Nature wired their brains.[:I]
I'm sure the girly men here are going into conniption fits so break out their smelling salts. [:p]
Michael, Michael, Michael, I kinda expected to see this reply, but I didn?t expect to see it from you. Understanding what you have read (U. S. Constitution) in eighteenth century English is included in understanding what you have read. It?s redundant to say I understand the Constitution as written in eighteenth century English with the exception of some Amendments.
I agree with you that some Eighteenth Century words have definitions unrelated to what they mean now, but anybody reading those words with twenty-first century meaning didn?t understand what they read.
I stand by: 2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
quote:Originally posted by asphalt cowboy
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
+1000
I, foolishly, got into a discussion with someone over the phrase "welfare of the state" and the idiot wouldn't let go of the concept of moneys doled out to those in need. I swear, that brick wall had dents in it.
I have argued with that same guy. I don?t do that no more. [:D] I know it's they same guy because no two people could be that stupid.
Sometimes when you remind them It isn?t in the Constitution that will shut them up. Usually not. I?s in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution and the context is ?promote the general Welfare?.
You would be wrong to remind them thusly, James.
The beginning of Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
16th Amendment
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The discussion would be to determine what was meant by 'general welfare of the United States'. Does the general welfare of the United States include taking care of an individual citizen in any manner? Perhaps it does, but it is equally important to understand that there is nothing in the Constitution, particularly after the passage of the 16th Amendment, that prohibits the Federal Government from taking our money and giving direct or indirect aid to any citizen for any reason.
It says states, not people or citizen. The state is the entity.
Considering that it states without apportionment among the several states, I do not see your point.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by mag00
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by JamesRK
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
Millions of people have a mistaken understanding what "Well Regulated" means. Likewise, people today confuse Ordinance with Ordnance and fuse with Fuze.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
I prefer only men on the bench. While Sandra Day O'Connor had good common sense, Ginburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor are AFU activists judges.
Women are fine in Family Court where feelings matter, they are worthless in criminal and civil courts where only logic is acceptable. It's not their fault, it's just the way Mother Nature wired their brains.[:I]
I'm sure the girly men here are going into conniption fits so break out their smelling salts. [:p]
Michael, Michael, Michael, I kinda expected to see this reply, but I didn?t expect to see it from you. Understanding what you have read (U. S. Constitution) in eighteenth century English is included in understanding what you have read. It?s redundant to say I understand the Constitution as written in eighteenth century English with the exception of some Amendments.
I agree with you that some Eighteenth Century words have definitions unrelated to what they mean now, but anybody reading those words with twenty-first century meaning didn?t understand what they read.
I stand by: 2. He/she understands the Constitution of the United States of America.
quote:Originally posted by asphalt cowboy
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
While I agree with you I also want additional qualifications. The jurist must be familiar with the eighteenth century colloquial meaning of the words used in documents and diaries of the time.
+1000
I, foolishly, got into a discussion with someone over the phrase "welfare of the state" and the idiot wouldn't let go of the concept of moneys doled out to those in need. I swear, that brick wall had dents in it.
I have argued with that same guy. I don?t do that no more. [:D] I know it's they same guy because no two people could be that stupid.
Sometimes when you remind them It isn?t in the Constitution that will shut them up. Usually not. I?s in the PREAMBLE to the Constitution and the context is ?promote the general Welfare?.
You would be wrong to remind them thusly, James.
The beginning of Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
16th Amendment
Amendment XVI
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
The discussion would be to determine what was meant by 'general welfare of the United States'. Does the general welfare of the United States include taking care of an individual citizen in any manner? Perhaps it does, but it is equally important to understand that there is nothing in the Constitution, particularly after the passage of the 16th Amendment, that prohibits the Federal Government from taking our money and giving direct or indirect aid to any citizen for any reason.
It says states, not people or citizen. The state is the entity.
Considering that it states without apportionment among the several states, I do not see your point.
We the people grant the power, if we don't grant it, they do not have it. Does that make sense?
Kavanaugh has already stated that his position as a judge is like a "umpire" he does not make the rules. He calls them on what he sees as evidence and law. The Constitution being the foundation.