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 judges
shootstright
Member Posts: 342 ✭✭✭
Ref: supreme court judges .
When one goes two law school they spend a lot of time learning how to get around the Constitution . If you look at the amendments to the Constitution, they get longer and more complicated as the Lawyers moved in.
Maybe it's time for someone who is one of us. Someone who can read what is written as it was intended , not a Lawyer , not someone who has an agenda. Just a person who is intelligent with commonsense , not a loony lefty.
Nobody that wants to end the second amendment or any other amendments Someone who has never run for a public office or worked in government . You know , one of us . One of we the people.
When one goes two law school they spend a lot of time learning how to get around the Constitution . If you look at the amendments to the Constitution, they get longer and more complicated as the Lawyers moved in.
Maybe it's time for someone who is one of us. Someone who can read what is written as it was intended , not a Lawyer , not someone who has an agenda. Just a person who is intelligent with commonsense , not a loony lefty.
Nobody that wants to end the second amendment or any other amendments Someone who has never run for a public office or worked in government . You know , one of us . One of we the people.
Comments
Neo-Jedi
Council
Naboo Sniper
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Lut us try and hold our breaths all together..as we pretend that ANYONE IN POWER wants a strict Constitutionalist in that position...
If I was the President, I'd appoint someone who was in their early 30s..... \a nominee that could sit on the bench for 60 years....
Perhaps comengetit would do or maybe this new guy on this spout . (QDPOP)
Comengetit : How is your handgunin commin .
Bird huntin not so good, got to get back to work.
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
We have already had judges that were not from the legal endeavor .
Perhaps comengetit would do or maybe this new guy on this spout . (QDPOP)
Comengetit : How is your handgunin commin .
Bird huntin not so good, got to get back to work.
A well armed society is the best form of homeland security.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
NRA write your Rep. will save a stamp
http://www.capwiz.com/nra/home/
GOA
http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm
Man, shootsright, where have you been? You just up and disappeared. It is going very well, I've droped down to a 1911 .45 and can hold it out for 6:30 but when I'm done the old shoulder is barking. Went to the range and drilled the target at 25 & 40 yds off handed with my Glock. Man, that feels like a feather now. Good advice, thanks a million.
Neo-Jedi Council
Naboo Sniper
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
CO. Birds up high and hard to find.
Glad to be home. Nice to hear your handgunin is better. Soon you can try 20 ga. shotshells stand them up on a rail , start at 20 ft and work up to 50. Nice to be back I see you have a new sparring
partner . (QDPOP)[8D]
I have been bird huntin . Three weeks out west in
CO. Birds up high and hard to find.
Glad to be home. Nice to hear your handgunin is better. Soon you can try 20 ga. shotshells stand them up on a rail , start at 20 ft and work up to 50. Nice to be back I see you have a new sparring
partner . (QDPOP)[8D]
Not hardly but he seems like a nice enough guy. His comments were probably pretty much right on but, that's not to difficult to figure out, I wear it on my sleeve. I'm not sure he read enough of my posts to get a feel for me but he certainly seems to want to. Oh well, whatever it takes 220, 221.[:D][:D][:D] I will definitely go to 20 Ga. shotshells @ 20 and 50 ft. You got it coach.[:D]
Neo-Jedi Council
Naboo Sniper
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
...You just have to remember that the SC's job is to interpret constitutional law, not to make law.
They either uphold or strike down creative and interpretive laws.
As long as they create nothing new, nor negate the constitution, we are all ok.
This doesn't mean that they could not uphold some borderline law by not REALLY having thought it through.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Neo-Jedi Council
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
We the people are who SCOTUS will answer to when we get peed off enough.
www.givemeliberty.org
www.constitutionalincome.com
Personally I think the Supreme Court should revisit all those cases whose rulings are questionable at best. That would get this country started on the road to recovery. I'm affraid it's going to take something like that or Highball will be dead nuts on right. I really hope this time he's wrong but logic and my own intelligence tell me he's not. So I go through my daily life while preparing for the SHOWDOWN. Coming to a theater near you, soon "The Insurrection".
Neo-Jedi Council
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
The only thing about that (I agree with you) is that they can't just go over the books. Someone has to bring a case.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
I didn't say it could be done, I said it should be done.[:)]
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
Actually, I don't see any good reason why they couldn't do a judicial review.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
amsptcds
A very long time ago in school , we learned that the SC was to keep an eye on the law makers in congress to see that they did it right. There job was to see that laws met constitutional muster. Were did the court stray from the intended coarse .
This thing about being able to take your property by emanate domain and sell it to another private party to get more tax return on it , is a prime example of what's wrong .
One should never get near the legal Justus system in this country. They are the enemy of the people.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
...You just have to remember that the SC's job is to interpret constitutional law, not to make law.
amsptcds
A very long time ago in school , we learned that the SC was to keep an eye on the law makers in congress to see that they did it right. There job was to see that laws met constitutional muster. Were did the court stray from the intended coarse .
This thing about being able to take your property by emanate domain and sell it to another private party to get more tax return on it , is a prime example of what's wrong .
One should never get near the legal Justus system in this country. They are the enemy of the people.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
I tend to agree with you.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
If I was in charge of nominating a Supreme court justice, Id pick Rep. Ron Paul of Texas.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Great call, man!!!!!!
There are two kinds of people in this World....Those who lead....and those who get the hell out of the way...GUT CHECK!...Which one are you?
I wish that they would start nominating people whose views conicide with their "constitutional law abilities".
A guy who is against abortion in his personal view, shouldn't be a US Justice. I don't care if he is used to living a Batman existence. It'll eventually bite him in the behind. His/her private/public face and life existence, if conflictory, is crap.
I would rather not have anyone for or against any issue on the court. I want people who believe in the law and who will uphold the constitution as the law of the land in a real sense. Not someone who believes that the constitution doesn't allow for his or her pet projects. (oh darn it, that's the way it is shucks)
THAT is not a judge. That is a human in conflict.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
A guy who is against abortion in his personal view, shouldn't be a US Justice. I don't care if he is used to living a Batman existence. It'll eventually bite him in the behind. His/her private/public face and life existence, if conflictory, is crap.
I would rather not have anyone for or against any issue on the court. I want people who believe in the law and who will uphold the constitution as the law of the land in a real sense. Not someone who believes that the constitution doesn't allow for his or her pet projects. (oh darn it, that's the way it is shucks)
THAT is not a judge. That is a human in conflict.
What??? Maybe I missed a joke here......If I understand you correctly, you said that a judge who has any position on anything (I assumed you used abortion as an example, and not as the defining issue) should not be a judge, right?
How the hell is that possible? People are going to have personal opinions on EVERYTHING, from what is tasteless to what color looks best on a new car. That is human nature, and judges are human.
I personally don't care what the man's opinion on any issue is, as long as he has enough sense to
a) Understand the meaning of the Constitution
b) Know exactly what the limits to his powers are
Molon Labe
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
A guy who is against abortion in his personal view, shouldn't be a US Justice. I don't care if he is used to living a Batman existence. It'll eventually bite him in the behind. His/her private/public face and life existence, if conflictory, is crap.
I would rather not have anyone for or against any issue on the court. I want people who believe in the law and who will uphold the constitution as the law of the land in a real sense. Not someone who believes that the constitution doesn't allow for his or her pet projects. (oh darn it, that's the way it is shucks)
THAT is not a judge. That is a human in conflict.
What??? Maybe I missed a joke here......If I understand you correctly, you said that a judge who has any position on anything (I assumed you used abortion as an example, and not as the defining issue) should not be a judge, right?
How the hell is that possible? People are going to have personal opinions on EVERYTHING, from what is tasteless to what color looks best on a new car. That is human nature, and judges are human.
I personally don't care what the man's opinion on any issue is, as long as he has enough sense to
a) Understand the meaning of the Constitution
b) Know exactly what the limits to his powers are
Molon Labe
But none of us can show that his/her personal aopinion will not guide the person in making decisions that end up affecting us all.
So yeah, the justices need to be aloof of the social wants and even morality, if they are going to be good judges. Why? beacuse socialvalues keep changing and cannot be trusted as a guide.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
A guy who is against abortion in his personal view, shouldn't be a US Justice. I don't care if he is used to living a Batman existence. It'll eventually bite him in the behind. His/her private/public face and life existence, if conflictory, is crap.
I would rather not have anyone for or against any issue on the court. I want people who believe in the law and who will uphold the constitution as the law of the land in a real sense. Not someone who believes that the constitution doesn't allow for his or her pet projects. (oh darn it, that's the way it is shucks)
THAT is not a judge. That is a human in conflict.
What??? Maybe I missed a joke here......If I understand you correctly, you said that a judge who has any position on anything (I assumed you used abortion as an example, and not as the defining issue) should not be a judge, right?
How the hell is that possible? People are going to have personal opinions on EVERYTHING, from what is tasteless to what color looks best on a new car. That is human nature, and judges are human.
I personally don't care what the man's opinion on any issue is, as long as he has enough sense to
a) Understand the meaning of the Constitution
b) Know exactly what the limits to his powers are
Molon Labe
And tho it may be human nature, HighV, for persons to have their sentiments drag their minds around like slaves, it isn't fitting for a judge to be there. Not if they are really going to support the constitution.
Since the constitution is the guide, and someone "feels" it doesn't address an issue as they'd like it to, to water the constitution to reflect their dreams, wishes and sentiments, makes the constitution a slave to their sentiments and a mockery to the original document.
I would suggest that we have an unenumerated right to have only the best legal minds sitting on the bench. SOmeone who is conflcted, cannot be the best. If their minds are on their emotive opinions and not on proper law, then their legal opinions will be tainted. As soon as a weakhole can be found, they will do what it outside the scope of their responsibility, they will create law.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Correct me if I am wrong, but your words seem to suuggest that the right to abortion is protected by the constitution, and therefore, a pro life justice would be unfairly predjudiced from protecting that constitutional right.
The problem with your position, AND IT IS A BIG ONE, is that the inalienable right to abort is not a protected right in the constitution. It is a "right" created by judges, and not a right found ANYWHERE in the constitution. Dont take my word for it-read the constitution, and stop reading what someoene else says the constitution says.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
amsptcds- No offense, but you are talking out of your *. If you think that someone who is "against abortion", should be disqualified from being a justice, that clearly indicates you have no idea about what the constitution says.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your words seem to suuggest that the right to abortion is protected by the constitution, and therefore, a pro life justice would be unfairly predjudiced from protecting that constitutional right.
The problem with your position, AND IT IS A BIG ONE, is that the inalienable right to abort is not a protected right in the constitution. It is a "right" created by judges, and not a right found ANYWHERE in the constitution. Dont take my word for it-read the constitution, and stop reading what someoene else says the constitution says.
well said!
Molon Labe
amsptcds, the only men I know who are not "conflicted" are either simpletons or dead.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
I'm glad you all are responding to amsptcds. I 'bout fell off my chair when I saw him C&P this post in the other thread.
amsptcds, the only men I know who are not "conflicted" are either simpletons or dead.
-WW
MOEUN EABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
the actual deal is that when one gets conflicted on an issue, one has to look past what one wants for what the obvious truth value of what issue is. (geez I wish I could type... hehehe)
It isn't that no one gets conflicted. It is the intensity of the internal conflict that is important.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
amsptcds- No offense, but you are talking out of your *. If you think that someone who is "against abortion", should be disqualified from being a justice, that clearly indicates you have no idea about what the constitution says.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your words seem to suuggest that the right to abortion is protected by the constitution, and therefore, a pro life justice would be unfairly predjudiced from protecting that constitutional right.
The problem with your position, AND IT IS A BIG ONE, is that the inalienable right to abort is not a protected right in the constitution. It is a "right" created by judges, and not a right found ANYWHERE in the constitution. Dont take my word for it-read the constitution, and stop reading what someoene else says the constitution says.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Many rights are what are called "unenumerated rights". Those are usually the reason that we have to fight themout in court, hence cases like Roe.
There is also the tenth ( I think) amendment that talks about right retained by the people. It seems like it is seldom used in cases to add gravity to personal rights.
But no, I'm not talking out my *, you're just thinking that I may be saying something that I am not.
I'm not trying to be testy here, I don't even know ya and don't want to tick you off, but if you are thinking that I am saying something that I am not, it would be some bias of your own not allowing you top hear what I'm saying in the sense that I am saying it. ALSO it could be true that I am not clear enough.
SO let me shade what I said. If someone had a deep set bias against abortion, that person shouldn't be on the court. The post I put in the other sub to WW might make it a little more clear, especially when he was talking about Roberts and the way Roberts handled it.
What I am really saying is that most people whether they have practiced constitutional law or not simply aren't good enough in my view. I want only the best of the best. But tha doesn't mean that the best volunteer for the positions either. I think, personally, that the "smart" ones want to stay out of the politics of the matter.
They are probably the ones who should be drafted and "dragged kicking and screaming" to the confirmation room.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
If we have a completely conservative court, we may be indeep stuff.
I am not a liberal, but I recognise the need for balance. I am not sure where it is right now.
I simply want people in there who will consistently interpret the constitution in ways that reflect what we all belive the intent of the constitution is, and have all those other issues resolved within themselves.
When a person lets it be known through the media that "I am against X", he gives hope to all those who would want to twist the constitution to their own desires.
John Austin is a good one to read in relation to this topic.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Now please cite where the constitution of the United States protects a womans "right to choose"......I only ask for this because you stated that "anyone who is against abortion.....shouldn't be a US justice"
Molon Labe
so what your saying is......you have to look past your beliefs and look at the law? I think that's what everyone else is saying too...
Now please cite where the constitution of the United States protects a womans "right to choose"......I only ask for this because you stated that "anyone who is against abortion.....shouldn't be a US justice"
Molon Labe
Well. yes, we might be cross talking and so that would be the root of the confusion...
gotta laugh about it.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
1. The Supreme Court must rule only from the Constitution. In the event that the Constitution does not address the case at hand, the Federal government must defer the State's jurisdiction (ala the 10th Amendment).
2. A Supreme Court justice should never let their personal bias interfere with a legal ruling. All rulings must be derived from the Constitution, regardless of personal dissent.
3. For the sake of integrity and objectivity, it is best that a Supreme Court justice not be involved in political activities or express opinions on political or social issues outside of their duties within the confines of the Court.
Let me know what you think about these statements.
-WW
MOΛΩN ΛABE
-Samuel Adams, Patriot/Brewer
...You just have to remember that the SC's job is to interpret constitutional law, not to make law.
amsptcds
A very long time ago in school , we learned that the SC was to keep an eye on the law makers in congress to see that they did it right. There job was to see that laws met constitutional muster. Were did the court stray from the intended coarse .
This thing about being able to take your property by emanate domain and sell it to another private party to get more tax return on it , is a prime example of what's wrong .
One should never get near the legal Justus system in this country. They are the enemy of the people.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
Make yourselves sheep, and the wolves will eat you.
Shootstraight...
Some people think it started with FDR. I don't really know "where we went wrong". It is disturbing though.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Anyways, how is abortion an "unenumerated right"? What is the basis of this "right"?
There is no "right" to murder (note: murder, not homicide) which is what I believe abortion to be....
Nor is there a "right" to do whatever one one wants with ones own body......take drug use, for example
There is however rights such as LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....Life, being the most important right, trumps all others. Abortions deny an individual his "right to life"
Molon Labe
amsptcds- No offense, but you are talking out of your *. If you think that someone who is "against abortion", should be disqualified from being a justice, that clearly indicates you have no idea about what the constitution says.
Correct me if I am wrong, but your words seem to suuggest that the right to abortion is protected by the constitution, and therefore, a pro life justice would be unfairly predjudiced from protecting that constitutional right.
The problem with your position, AND IT IS A BIG ONE, is that the inalienable right to abort is not a protected right in the constitution. It is a "right" created by judges, and not a right found ANYWHERE in the constitution. Dont take my word for it-read the constitution, and stop reading what someoene else says the constitution says.
"Waiting tables is what you know, making cheese is what I know-lets stick with what we know!"
-Jimmy the cheese man
Salzo,
It may well be that the right to an abortion was already in the constitution. It simply wasn't "enumerated". Where do any of us get off telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, in this case her pregnancy. It isn't any of our business. It may anger us (emotional), we may think it wrong (morality) we may think that it ought not happen (sentiment), but what we feel about it has nothing to do with principle. It seems to me that Roe was important to simply validate what may already reside within the constitution.
For us to start yelling about right and wrong and "Abortion! Murder!" and all that junk, has more to do with our christianity than anything else. My opinion is that if you believe in God and are one of the followers, then you know that God is the arbiter. It sure isn't me.
What I am trying to get you to see is that simply because something is not listed as a specific inalienable right, doesn't mean that we don't have that right, and in fact since it is unlisted, it may in fact mean that we do in fact have the right under the "inalienable" rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Now, if you think that is wrong,then OK, I have no issue with that.
I only want to say that the moment that if you add a clause to an "inalienable" right, (especially if it becomes a negative right) you limit that right and it is no longer "inalienable". That makes Bentham right in declaring that "inalienable" rights are Nonsense on Stilts.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Yeah, I was a little slow in my response, sorry 'bout the cross-talk.
Anyways, how is abortion an "unenumerated right"? What is the basis of this "right"?
There is no "right" to murder (note: murder, not homicide) which is what I believe abortion to be....
Nor is there a "right" to do whatever one one wants with ones own body......take drug use, for example
There is however rights such as LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.....Life, being the most important right, trumps all others. Abortions deny an individual his "right to life"
Molon Labe
"Enumerated" rights are specific rights that are "listed" like the "right to keep and bear arms". It is "unenumerated" that we have the right to the latest technological weaponry, which we do have that right in some states.
"unenumerated" rights are rights that we think are implied by the constitution.
We all feel that we have a right to walk down the street unmolested by anyone. We do have that right and police will normally enforce that. But it isn't a listed right.
We have an inalienable right to property, but I am not sure that it is a listed right.
Have I sort of sorted that one out?
That is the way those leagal people talk about "constitutional law" and rights, as enumerated and unenumerated.
Scott
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
Where do any of us get off telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, in this case her pregnancy.
As I said before, there is no "right" to do as you please with you body.....for example, if I walk into my local county courthouse and start slicing my wrists, I WILL be arrested, and taken to the nearest hospital.
Secondly, the body which is being destroyed, does not "belong" to the woman. It is a seperate life, with a seperate brain, heart, ect....
A woman has no more right to end this life than I have a right to strangle a woman who is pregnant with my child.
Molon Labe
so what your saying is......you have to look past your beliefs and look at the law? I think that's what everyone else is saying too...
Now please cite where the constitution of the United States protects a womans "right to choose"......I only ask for this because you stated that "anyone who is against abortion.....shouldn't be a US justice"
Molon Labe
All I am saying HighV is that the constitution should never have had to say that at all. It is probably our own biases that denied women a right to choose, but not the document.
Where would the constitution say that none of us has a right to choose ( any x)? I mean, would that even make sense? No.
But the idea, that someone had to sue in order to "gain" a right, shows that they had somehow been "denied" a right. Can you deny something that doesn't exist? Of course not. Roe shows that there is room in the constitution for that right.
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member
"Enumerated" rights are specific rights that are "listed" like the "right to keep and bear arms". It is "unenumerated" that we have the right to the latest technological weaponry, which we do have that right in some states.
We have the right to arms, the arms that we have rights to are not restricted by the constitution, therefore any restriction in unconstitutional
"unenumerated" rights are rights that we think are implied by the constitution.
We all feel that we have a right to walk down the street unmolested by anyone. We do have that right and police will normally enforce that. But it isn't a listed right.
This could be seen as a "life" issue, or a "pursuit of happiness" therefore there is no need to list this specifically...since my walking down the street does not infringe on any other persons rights
We have an inalienable right to property, but I am not sure that it is a listed right.
we used to, anyways.....thanks go out to the Supreme Court for that
Have I sort of sorted that one out?
That is the way those leagal people talk about "constitutional law" and rights, as enumerated and unenumerated.
Scott
Molon Labe
quote:Originally posted by amsptcds
Where do any of us get off telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her body, in this case her pregnancy.
As I said before, there is no "right" to do as you please with you body.....for example, if I walk into my local county courthouse and start slicing my wrists, I WILL be arrested, and taken to the nearest hospital.
Secondly, the body which is being destroyed, does not "belong" to the woman. It is a seperate life, with a seperate brain, heart, ect....
A woman has no more right to end this life than I have a right to strangle a woman who is pregnant with my child.
Molon Labe
You're confusing a right with a law.
There is a law against that verified by a sanction. (the coocoo clock sanction in this case)
But there is no right either for or against it is there?
I am thinking that you might assert that there is no right to blow your own head off, possibly.
But what sanction is there for that? Who's gonna punish you?
The duty to preserve one's self ought never be denied.
Neo-Jedi Order
Member