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.

Supreme Court nomination

mogley98mogley98 Member Posts: 18,291 ✭✭✭✭
edited March 2016 in Politics
Fox news debated the other day regarding the decision not to consider confirming the current candidate for the Supreme Court.

One view was that the GOP was waiting to see if they will win the election, if the GOP doesn't win they would quickly confirm.

If they win they will hold off and let the new President make a new selection.

The push back was that if they wait and they don't win the election, Obama could pull his nominee and they would have to deal with a potentially further left justice.

Dangerous

I wish the Supreme Court was required to use Originalism to interpret the Constitutionality of issues versus trying to use Textualism to change it.

At least as I understand it that would require a true constitutional amendment to make any changes versus a majority ruling based on right or left leaning justices interpretation.
Why don't we go to school and work on the weekends and take the week off!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • RocklobsterRocklobster Member Posts: 7,060 ✭
    edited November -1
    I still cannot find where in the Constitution it is stated that the Supreme Court (or anyone else) may "interpret" it.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • casper1947casper1947 Member Posts: 1,147 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Judicial Review is a power that the Supreme Court granted itself. We are where we are today because of the concept of balance of ideology on the court. This was the grounds for a revolution, in my opinion, but it was slow and steady (progressive), now after decades of complacency it's too late.

    The concept of the Republic was lost with the 17th amendment.
    The Constitution was lost with Judicial Review.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 32,669 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Except for the rarest of occasions and under the narrowest of circumstances the modern Supreme Court has ruled against individual freedoms and rights; they rule to give government MORE power. Nothing will change if another government loving POS like Stevens or Ginsburg is appointed.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Mr. PerfectMr. Perfect Member, Moderator Posts: 66,381 ******
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
    I still cannot find where in the Constitution it is stated that the Supreme Court (or anyone else) may "interpret" it.
    Of course it isn't, but they added it to their own charter a long while back. Not sure how or why they were allowed to usurp that power.
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    And fiery auto crashes
    Some will die in hot pursuit
    While sifting through my ashes
    Some will fall in love with life
    And drink it from a fountain
    That is pouring like an avalanche
    Coming down the mountain
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • tallcharlietallcharlie Member Posts: 673 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Marbury v. Madison (1803)
    "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
    -Chief Justice John Marshall
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.