OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Bingo. Justices are supposed to be impartial, nonpartisan despite personal beliefs. You said it, not me 😜
The Ginni stuff, not recusing, the $ scandals, are as bad as how inflexible he is regarding interpretation.
Oh, the rap music, fried chicken and watermelon too.
Last edited:
MY drivel? Ha, that's a good one.
You said I wasn't keeping up because my link referred to the 5th Circuit, but I showed that you brought the 5th into it first, to be referred to. So now you play dumb, as you are prone to do. That's what I'm saying.
So now you'll say 'but your link wasn't about the SCOTUS', and I'll just have to point out to you again that you made the 5th part of the conversation, so my link wasn't irrelevant.
Try to keep up. And stop playing dumb. If that's even possible for you.
if they were being that obvious, why didn't they just put giant dildos on the ships' prows. Here's your jab, Khomeini.
no, you just said it...that's what conservatives do, they follow the Constitution. You can't be more impartial and non-partisan than that. They aren't like the liberal side that thinks they are the legislature, creating and/or mutilating law according to a liberal agenda.
Actually someone else mentioned the 5th first, not me, see https://northcarolina.forums.rivals.com/threads/ootbs-political-thread.64859/post-1742658.
keep up.
it doesn't matter who mentioned it first in the thread. You mentioned it before my link, therefor you mentioned it first in relation to my post, so therefor my link WAS keeping up and your diss was off-target, as it still is.
Wise up and keep up.
But YOU actually just said it. All judges "are supposed to be impartial, nonpartisan despite personal beliefs", not just Supreme Court Justices (insert Judge Engoron laughing emoji here).
That's exactly what Thomas and other conservatives, or originalists, do. Your dnc drummed up assumptions about him are typical smear politics. You can't point out one single opinion, or even a question he asked in open court, that shows anything other than nonpartisan application of the Constitution. That's what bedevils you so much, that he isn't flexible in his interpretations. He doesn't create to fit the cause du jour.
Think of it this way. Judges and justices are umpires. They don't pitch the ball, they don't swing the ball, they don't catch the ball, and they don't run the bases. They are only supposed to call balls/strikes and call safe/out. The players play and the umpires enforce the rules. Anything else and they've overstepped their bounds. Your problem is that when you can't get your agenda or desires passed through the legislative and executive branches, you want the judicial branch to backdoor it. These are what are known as activist judges. That's not how it's supposed to be done and when judges/justices actually do things the way they are supposed to, it doesn't make them evil or even inappropriate.
Last edited:
don't forget foul/fair. That's important when assessing cases according to the Constitution, especially when dealing with the leftist, activist judges whose decisions are being examined.
what it 'posed to do.
"Role
The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. 1 Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. 2Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law. "
1) as with the improper creation of law with Roe V. Wade that was properly and finally upended by right (correct)-thinking justices.
2) in other words, it keeps the left from being completely successful with their relentless, continuous assault on the Constitution and our individual freedoms. It fights the tyranny of the majority.
"Role
The Supreme Court plays a very important role in our constitutional system of government. First, as the highest court in the land, it is the court of last resort for those looking for justice. 1 Second, due to its power of judicial review, it plays an essential role in ensuring that each branch of government recognizes the limits of its own power. Third, it protects civil rights and liberties by striking down laws that violate the Constitution. 2Finally, it sets appropriate limits on democratic government by ensuring that popular majorities cannot pass laws that harm and/or take undue advantage of unpopular minorities. In essence, it serves to ensure that the changing views of a majority do not undermine the fundamental values common to all Americans, i.e., freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and due process of law. "
1) as with the improper creation of law with Roe V. Wade that was properly and finally upended by right (correct)-thinking justices.
2) in other words, it keeps the left from being completely successful with their relentless, continuous assault on the Constitution and our individual freedoms. It fights the tyranny of the majority.
Yeah... it's a real bite-in-the-ass when the majority gets what it wants. We can't have that in any really good society, let alone the greatest country in the world!
Well, see, that's just it. We can. The majority elects representatives in our constitutional republic and they then go forth and do their jobs. If it is an actual majority versus those who simply shout the loudest one way or the other, it is likely to happen. The issue that is the problem is when the claimed majority, over time, doesn't get what they are shouting for, one has to question whether or not it really is a majority.
I guess they have a different word, or term, for "shout the loudest" in the various governing documents.
The "tyranny of the majority" is just funny to me. I don't take it on some tangential journey of "shouting the loudest." Whatever... I'm just talking about the citizens and their votes.
It's okay to have majority rule when it's a representative? It's okay to have majority rule when it's electing a governor. Senator, sheriff, city council, etc.. Are they shouting or voting? That's way too much tyranny in the greatest country in the world.
so tedious it is reading your same old make-it-up as- you-go, off-the-wall BS. Nowhere was it said in my post that the majority shouldn't get what the majority needs WHEN that doesn't impose on the needs and rights of the individual or minority groups. The tyranny of the majority is a term that was coined regarding that kind of possibility with unchecked majority power.
And it isn't quite as simple as it sounds. As is explained by the coiner of the term, the majority in its desire for immediate gratification doesn't always base its requirements on sound considerations. And on and on. It is COMMONLY AGREED ON by virtually everyone with a valid opinion that simple majority rule is not a good way to govern a democracy, for the reasons given and more. 'Tyranny of the majority' expresses that quite well and quite reasonably.
But of course you have to make it sufficiently misconstrued and simple-minded in order to do your usual whiny virtue-signaling.
I have to take issue here. How is what you just said supposed to allow him to whine and piss and moan about nothing? He can't virtue-signal and express misplaced sarcasm unless he can make up a problem and run with it. Please stop raining on his parade.
Who gets to determine what is or isn't a "valid opinion?" It's rhetorical, so, don't bother.
So now you're on board with what the majority wants? I don't think you've thought this through.
You could say the same of textualists.
Also it kinda sounds like you are saying all conservatives are strict originalists, you act like it has been around forever. Scotus-wise, was it even much of a thing before Scalia? Alito has criticized some parts of originalist theory.
Baseball is a bit more simple don't you think? Parts of the constitution are very specific, others are so vague that they seem intentionally vague. And the constitution isn't just the doc from late 1700's it includes the amendments too. Originalists use tradition and history as their reasoning when it fit's their conservative desires but not so much in other rulings. In those affirmative action cases, Kagan was the one who had to ask “what would a committed originalist think about the kind of race-consciousness that’s at issue here?" , and then all that philosophy and history was discarded apparently by people like Thomas.
Last edited:
it's OK to have majority rule when there are protections for the minority, just as has been very amply stated here in response to your initial mischaracterization. No one said there was tyranny, although there is....we said there is protection against tyranny, which is the entire point.
BTW, a valid opinion would be that of anyone of reasonable intelligence with a familiarity and understanding of this simple concept, an understanding that somehow seems to be escaping you. I'll stand by for you to come back with requiring an explanation of the italicized terms.
Your tactic of persistent idiocy isn't working for you..
He's conservative (your words) and he's been around forever - that's probably what brings him the most ire.
I think he's became especially unpopular after Citizen's United given how cozy he is with Koch Bros (and recently we've learned with Leonard Leo and everything else.) Should've recused himself on that ruling, along with many others.
PS, WTF does originalism say about corporations which didn't exist eons ago? How can we grant free speach/free press to something that didn't even exist? That ruling is one of the biggest problems now among the $-in-politics problems...
Last edited:
wouldn't it be more reasonable just to say that conservatives lean far more toward originalism than leftists do and leave it at that? No two individuals are going to have exactly the same take on various subjects, and acting like they should, for the sake of argument, isn't going to resolve any issue.
corporate citizen
what does it need to say? Corporations are designed to be considered as individual citizens. Are you arguing that citizens shouldn't have freedom of speech? That a wealthy person shouldn't be allowed to put up a billboard to express himself, even if that is an expression of support for a candidate for office?
Besides, corporations don't have to support conservative causes and I'm not sure at this point that most do.
If the corporation as citizen model isn't working, we should change that model rather than expect the model to be treated as however you happen to be comfortable with at the moment.
What would an originalist say? Corporations as of late 1700's and as of the creation of the 14th amendment were not designed to be considered as individual citizens. At those times they had no rights that citizens had.
ps, it is ironic that the link you provide is discussing a section titled "The evolution of the Corporate Form". There is no room for evolution since we're talking about originalists, right? Or are you advocating for a living constitution that evolves with the times?
I was going to say "I do'". Here's a helpful hint...when I rhetoricalize a question, I generally leave off the '?'. That way you don't have to point it out.
@blazers . I answered your last three replies to me in a single post, and when I hit the post button it just disappeared.
I had to come to the office and I'm on my laptop that stays here and which seems to be on the way out. I will wait for that post to have reappeared when I get back home, and if it hasn't I'll repost.. Just letting you know so that you won't be on the edge of your seat waiting.
I had to come to the office and I'm on my laptop that stays here and which seems to be on the way out. I will wait for that post to have reappeared when I get back home, and if it hasn't I'll repost.. Just letting you know so that you won't be on the edge of your seat waiting.
no, I was asking you. Notice that your moniker and post is positioned directly above my question. But @pooponduke is welcome to jump in of course.
corporations weren't mentioned in the Constitution, so I would have to say that an originalist would consider them to be not original, and therefor any need to address them AS AN ORIGINALIST to be nonexistent. The concept of corporations was not expressly developed within the Constitution but by external factors, so applying the Constitution to them would be the same as applying the Constitution to any other such external thing developing in an ongoing basis. That being the case, the current concept definitely treats corporations as an individual citizen, at least in many respects.
So what would an originalist say? I imagine an originalist reading your question would be like
irony? Where's the irony? I think you forgot to include it because I don't see any. As I pointed out, corporations didn't evolve within the Constitution, but of course the Constitution has been applied to them in whatever form they happened to be at the time. Am I advocating for a living Constitution that blah blah blah? Of course, because with properly derived amendments, an evolving Constitution is what we DO have and what we SHOULD have. What we should NOT have is a Constitution that lives and evolves through errant judicial interpretations and misguided attempts to usurp the legislature to create law and make de facto amendments.
Here's an article that may help. It sets out why many of your misconceptions exist and are inaccurate.
Go Heels and Go Dukes!!!
What is originalism? Debunking the myths
The judicial theory has been a major talking point during the past three Supreme Court nominations. But what does it actually mean?
theconversation.com
Tl;drno, I was asking you. Notice that your moniker and post is positioned directly above my question. But @pooponduke is welcome to jump in of course.
corporations weren't mentioned in the Constitution, so I would have to say that an originalist would consider them to be not original, and therefor any need to address them AS AN ORIGINALIST to be nonexistent. The concept of corporations was not expressly developed within the Constitution but by external factors, so applying the Constitution to them would be the same as applying the Constitution to any other such external thing developing in an ongoing basis. That being the case, the current concept definitely treats corporations as an individual citizen, at least in many respects.
So what would an originalist say? I imagine an originalist reading your question would be like
irony? Where's the irony? I think you forgot to include it because I don't see any. As I pointed out, corporations didn't evolve within the Constitution, but of course the Constitution has been applied to them in whatever form they happened to be at the time. Am I advocating for a living Constitution that blah blah blah? Of course, because with properly derived amendments, an evolving Constitution is what we DO have and what we SHOULD have. What we should NOT have is a Constitution that lives and evolves through errant judicial interpretations and misguided attempts to usurp the legislature to create law and make de facto amendments.
Yeah, congratulations. Now, get out you checkbook, Mr. Billionaire, you have ten days to cough
up a mere $175,000,000 to satisfy the latest WE-BEND-OVER-BACKWARDS-FOR-YOU-BECAUSE-
WE-DON'T-YET-HAVE-THE-CHAINS-AND-PADLOCKS-FOR-THE-PROPERTIES-WE-ARE-ABOUT-TO-SEIZE-
YET ruling.
up a mere $175,000,000 to satisfy the latest WE-BEND-OVER-BACKWARDS-FOR-YOU-BECAUSE-
WE-DON'T-YET-HAVE-THE-CHAINS-AND-PADLOCKS-FOR-THE-PROPERTIES-WE-ARE-ABOUT-TO-SEIZE-
YET ruling.
Trump's stock rallies ahead of listing and appeals court win on civil fraud bond
Former President Donald Trump won a reduced bond requirement that spares him from having to cover the full $454 million civil fraud judgment against him before midnight on Monday.
🤣 🤣 🤣Trump's stock rallies ahead of listing and appeals court win on civil fraud bond
Former President Donald Trump won a reduced bond requirement that spares him from having to cover the full $454 million civil fraud judgment against him before midnight on Monday.www.foxbusiness.com
In the financial investment sector, nothing is quite so laughable as an overvalued and artificially-inflated meme stock offering. I'll bet you were first in line to invest your life savings alongside Donald Trump. I hate to tell you, kid, but you've been taken.
The point of me poasting the article was just to illustrate that Trump has no financial woes in his future, despite NY's efforts. Much to the chagrin of all the TDS infected liberals like yourself. I'm sure you're laughing it off in an effort to mask your sadness and disappointment. But if that disappoints you, ooof...just wait until November. That is if Paw Paw can make until then.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Transfer Portal Thread (Update 5-5, 4 PM: What Bigs Remain list added)- Latest: JimmyNaismith
-
-
-
-