Amy Coney Barrett (Supreme Court) Come on Down!

shon46

I.T.S. Position Coach
Sep 16, 2008
2,286
272
83
UK
I can’t speak for anyone else but when I think of what qualities I want in a judge it reads as the following; Nationalist, Constitution Expert, values western family structure, pro life, anti censorship, pro human rights, brilliant, fair, and consistent. Most of those values/qualities used to resonate with both parties but apparently the majority of the left no longer value that. I think it’s less about a party but more about one side rejecting the Christian foundation the country was founded on.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Head Coach
Apr 18, 2011
6,245
397
83
la la land
Ill address the elephant in the room, Abortion.

a Judges decision should not be based on feeling, opinion, religion, polls or social media. Use the constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU_BLA

shon46

I.T.S. Position Coach
Sep 16, 2008
2,286
272
83
UK
When I was younger I used to be a huge fan of abortion. I have shifted from that position and believe that greater education and prevention are necessary to effectively reduce the number of abortions. Only in certain situations should abortion be granted and I go back and forth on what those circumstances should be. We have a declining population. Abortion only helps to contribute to that reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noble cane

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
I can’t speak for anyone else but when I think of what qualities I want in a judge it reads as the following; Nationalist, Constitution Expert, values western family structure, pro life, anti censorship, pro human rights, brilliant, fair, and consistent. Most of those values/qualities used to resonate with both parties but apparently the majority of the left no longer value that. I think it’s less about a party but more about one side rejecting the Christian foundation the country was founded on.
I could give a crap about most of the things you just listed. I want someone who is brilliant in logic, reason, and has a sense for what justice truly is and an idea about what their rulings might lead to in terms of justice for all Americans going forward. A lot of the time, that follows the constitution, but sometimes our interpretation of the constitution needs to be updated to better serve modern society. If your ruling is going to follow a 200 year old constitutional interpretation but you know it will also descend the country in to chaos, then you should probably alter the interpretation.

As good as the founding fathers were, they were not perfect and neither was their universal law of the land, and if they were we wouldn’t have questions of constitutional law on the first place, nor would we have had to add so many broad amendments.Constitutions (not just America’s) are living documents that have to be adaptable to modern circumstance while still upholding the fundamental ideas they were instituted to insure (establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty).

What the Republican Party is doing by abusing the system to assign the most justices they can by whatever means possible is not just. Nor is their abuse of a system that favors one rural voter’s ideals more than one urban voter’s. Those usurpations are now beginning to threaten domestic tranquility as the people being done injustices to are getting angrier and angrier at the unfairness of the system.

I don’t want any constructionist put in office because they’re essentially acting as architects building a house in a tornado / earthquake ridden landscape using a blueprint from 200+ years ago when we didn’t even know all of the the science behind making houses structurally sound. I want someone that metaphorically can say, “how can I use the plans thatI’ve been given along with my own judgement to insure that our houses are going to continue to stand for generations?” This question is essentially what the founding fathers were asking themselves in the late 1700’s... why have we stopped asking it now?
 
Last edited:

Clong83a

I.T.S. Junior
Nov 15, 2014
748
605
93
Amy Jackson seems like a potentially good pick, all things considered. Her nomination to the federal bench was contentious, but from my understanding since she has been there, she has earned the respect of her peers both GOP and Democratic. I feel like if this had happened last year, there would still be a lot of hand-wringing, but ultimately she would be seated and life would probably go on.

I guess what I am trying to say is that if the Dem gum up the works somehow to block it, or promise to pack the court in response, that effort is not so much about the candidate as it is about the process. The unwritten "rules" have consistently failed us in the Senate, as they seem to go out the window whenever it is convenient for the party in charge.

Whatever happens with this seat, whether it is Jackson, some other conservative justice, or if the Dems manage to block it somehow, I think one thing is becoming clear:
We need some form of legislation that says when it is acceptable or not acceptable to nominate a justice. If we want to specify that it should or shouldn't happen in a presidential election year, or within x months of an election, then fine, but we need to write it down and make it a law to formalize that process because otherwise this is just going to keep happening. Additionally, specifying that any valid nomination MUST receive an up/down vote from the whole Senate within x days (and failure is implied consent) seems like an unfortunate necessity too.

I would otherwise bet going forward that if the President and Senate are controlled by opposite parties, no SC picks will ever get through again. At least not anytime soon.
 

okie51

I.T.S. Junior
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
642
263
63
The country is very close to becoming socialist. If Trump gets the SC pick and is confirmed but Biden wins in November and the Senate swings left it will not be long before the SC is packed for Dems. Just let the process work out, votes matter. Why riot, attach people in their car, having dinner at a restaurant or even kill.

Biden wins we become a one party country. It won't be pretty if you like freedom and liberty. Those in power at the top will be rich along with the multi Billionaires around the world. The rest of us will become their sheep. America was an experiment unlike any other place on earth. Freedom is not normal around the world the powerful hate the idea.
 

GoldenCaneKC

I.T.S. Junior
Jul 3, 2006
654
250
63
If your ruling is going to follow a 200 year old constitutional interpretation but you know it will also descend the country in to chaos, then you should probably alter the interpretation.
Two thoughts:
1) No interpretation sends a country into chaos. People create chaos. And the fact that people might say “your ruling made me do this” is wrong and juvenile.
2) The court should not alter the interpretation. The legislature should alter the law. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
 

TUMU

I.T.S. Defensive Coordinator
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
2,771
427
83
What would the Dems do in this situation?
It's politics in 2020.

Both parties would do they same thing if in the same situation. And both parties would bitch and complain if they were on the other side of the situation.

Might have been different in the past, but not today.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Two thoughts:
1) No interpretation sends a country into chaos. People create chaos. And the fact that people might say “your ruling made me do this” is wrong and juvenile.
2) The court should not alter the interpretation. The legislature should alter the law. That’s how it’s supposed to work.
You're a fool. Go read about the Dread Scott case and tell me that it wasn't a decision that certainly contributed to the chaos leading to the Civil War, and perpetuated the forced servitude of countless African Americans. Or, tell me how America would have been better if the supreme court had ruled in favor of the Board of Education in Brown v. Board. There are certainly instances when bad judicial decisions have allowed extremely negative events to keep occurring in our history. Events that might have been solved if the courts had just altered their interpretations. Citizen's United is a prime modern example. (The right wing would say the same thing about Roe v. Wade)

In many instances, the difficulty to change the law is much costlier in terms of lives, or civility than simply making the right decision in the first place.
 

shon46

I.T.S. Position Coach
Sep 16, 2008
2,286
272
83
UK
You're a fool. Go read about the Dread Scott case and tell me that it wasn't a decision that certainly contributed to the chaos leading to the Civil War, and perpetuated the forced servitude of countless African Americans. Or, tell me how America would have been better if the supreme court had ruled in favor of the Board of Education in Brown v. Board. There are certainly instances when bad judicial decisions have allowed extremely negative events to keep occurring in our history. Events that might have been solved if the courts had just altered their interpretations. Citizen's United is a prime modern example. (The right wing would say the same thing about Roe v. Wade)

In many instances, the difficulty to change the law is much costlier in terms of lives, or civility than simply making the right decision in the first place.
I understand your perspective but I think you just proved his point! His words didn’t cause you to call him a fool, it was how you chose to respond to his words. Guns don’t kill People, People kill People. I am not a fan of Roe vs Wade but doesn’t give me the right to go blow up an abortion clinic just bc I don’t agree with the ruling. No matter what ruling the Court declares, people are still responsible for their individual actions.
 

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
22,724
1,934
113
74
I am pro-choice but I do not think anyone who is not is a fool. The law hasn't changed under the current Court. The current Court is already Conservative. The abortion laws haven't changed under it. They use Roe v. Wade as issue is a sham to bring in other laws that the Digressives want. Attacking the Constitution would lead to many rulings that Americans don't want.

Dred Scott was a bad decision about 160 years ago. A war was fought over it and lost by its proponents. It ain't coming back. Aston throws in junk to make himself look educated and anyone who doesn't buy it is a "fool."
 
Last edited:

Gold*

Serious Cat Circle of Honor
Gold Member
Dec 3, 2003
33,635
7,369
113
I am pro-choice but I do not think anyone who is not is a fool. The law hasn't changed under the current Court. The current Court is already Conservative. The abortion laws haven't changed under it. They use Roe v. Wade as issue is a sham to bring in other laws that the Digressives want. Attacking the Constitution would lead to many rulings that Americans don't want.

Dred Scott was a bad decision about 160 years ago. A war was fought over it and lost by its proponents. It ain't coming back. Aston throws in junk to make himself look educated and anyone who doesn't buy it is a "fool."
I raised Dred Scott in another thread in response to Noble’s claim that the court all of a sudden became political after William Rehnquist (which is not the point he was trying to make).

The point is the court is often political. Look at Marbury v. Madison.

The problem is that a lot of the commentators are pretty stupid. Some people argue there should be no judicial review ever. But no one really wants this.
 

shon46

I.T.S. Position Coach
Sep 16, 2008
2,286
272
83
UK
I raised Dred Scott in another thread in response to Noble’s claim that the court all of a sudden became political after William Rehnquist (which is not the point he was trying to make).

The point is the court is often political. Look at Marbury v. Madison.

The problem is that a lot of the commentators are pretty stupid. Some people argue there should be no judicial review ever. But no one really wants this.
Agreed, the times change and the laws should be reviewed to and possibly changed to reflect the changing of the times.
 

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
22,724
1,934
113
74
I raised Dred Scott in another thread in response to Noble’s claim that the court all of a sudden became political after William Rehnquist (which is not the point he was trying to make).

The point is the court is often political. Look at Marbury v. Madison.

The problem is that a lot of the commentators are pretty stupid. Some people argue there should be no judicial review ever. But no one really wants this.
I agree with most of what you said.

Now if things had been reversed and the Dems had control of the Senate in 2016, Harry Reed would have pushed the Obama choice through in a New York minute. Why not? Many of the changes we have seen in the Senate date back to good ole Harry AND to McConnell.

Trump will still be President, until Jan 20th, and that means he can nominate. It will be close whether it will be approved. No could come from Collins and Romney. Recent confirmations of Justices have taken from 58 to about 90 days, that's close too.

One thing is true, Pelosi's threat to impeach Trump is hogwash. She can impeach him as many times as she wants but doesn't have 67 votes to remove. In fact, neither party will have any interest in spending campaign time on a impeachment that will go nowhere. Not even after the election should he win. Democrat gains would have to be 20 seats with only on third up for election.

Of course, there should be Judicial review.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverickfp

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
I am pro-choice but I do not think anyone who is not is a fool. The law hasn't changed under the current Court. The current Court is already Conservative. The abortion laws haven't changed under it. They use Roe v. Wade as issue is a sham to bring in other laws that the Digressives want. Attacking the Constitution would lead to many rulings that Americans don't want.

Dred Scott was a bad decision about 160 years ago. A war was fought over it and lost by its proponents. It ain't coming back. Aston throws in junk to make himself look educated and anyone who doesn't buy it is a "fool."
The current court was moderate with a slight conservative lean as Roberts was the swing vote. A new conservative appointment would tilt the balance significantly and you'd see quite a few more 6-3 or 5-4 decisions (if Roberts moved a bit towards the center left)

I specifically pointed out Dred Scott because it was case that led to chaos. I don't ONLY think that the ONLY cases where revisionist constitutional interpretation are necessary are cases that would lead to chaos, but those are the easiest to justify revisionist interpretation for. I think you should frame your constitutional interpretation on the contributions or detriments that your decisions are going to have upon our nation's ability to uphold the ideals for our government listed in the Preamble.

If your decision follows the written Constitution to a T, but you foresee severe detriment to the country's ability to:

Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare, or Secure Liberty and Prosperity for this and future generations...

Then your decision and the Constitution itself would be flawed. Much like I wouldn't want a builder to follow the blueprint for a house to the T, when they knew that doing so would jeopardize the structure's integrity in the not-so-distant future. I want my ultimate experts of the land to know how to not only interpret their instructions but also think critically about what their interpretations could mean on a macroscopic level.

Being so narrow sighted as to believe that any decision you make will be productive to the US as long as you follow the Constitution precisely as the founders wrote it and understood it in the late 1700's is simply wrong. It's been proven wrong time and time again, and we've literally fought a Civil War over how wrong that idea is.
 

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
22,724
1,934
113
74
Some of what you quote are from the Preamble, which was explaining why it was written and including what it does. The actual Articles provide it's requirements.

And no, we are not stuck with things written 200+ years ago. There is a method for changing it. It has been used 27 times and includes (among other changes) freeing the slaves, giving blacks voting rights, giving women voting rights, banning alcohol, legalizing alcohol, lowering the voting age to 18, election of Senators, presidential succession, limiting the president to two terms, and combining the president and vice president as a team elected together.
 

shon46

I.T.S. Position Coach
Sep 16, 2008
2,286
272
83
UK
The current court was moderate with a slight conservative lean as Roberts was the swing vote. A new conservative appointment would tilt the balance significantly and you'd see quite a few more 6-3 or 5-4 decisions (if Roberts moved a bit towards the center left)

I specifically pointed out Dred Scott because it was case that led to chaos. I don't ONLY think that the ONLY cases where revisionist constitutional interpretation are necessary are cases that would lead to chaos, but those are the easiest to justify revisionist interpretation for. I think you should frame your constitutional interpretation on the contributions or detriments that your decisions are going to have upon our nation's ability to uphold the ideals for our government listed in the Preamble.

If your decision follows the written Constitution to a T, but you foresee severe detriment to the country's ability to:

Establish Justice, Insure Domestic Tranquility, Provide for the Common Defense, Promote the General Welfare, or Secure Liberty and Prosperity for this and future generations...

Then your decision and the Constitution itself would be flawed. Much like I wouldn't want a builder to follow the blueprint for a house to the T, when they knew that doing so would jeopardize the structure's integrity in the not-so-distant future. I want my ultimate experts of the land to know how to not only interpret their instructions but also think critically about what their interpretations could mean on a macroscopic level.

Being so narrow sighted as to believe that any decision you make will be productive to the US as long as you follow the Constitution precisely as the founders wrote it and understood it in the late 1700's is simply wrong. It's been proven wrong time and time again, and we've literally fought a Civil War over how wrong that idea is.
Ok but your response about being narrow sighted isn’t a party line perspective, that’s an academic and judicial issue. What specific issues do you see a conservative not championing for you?
 

Clong83a

I.T.S. Junior
Nov 15, 2014
748
605
93
Just to give this all some perspective. Here is a chart of all the justices that retired/died within one year of a presidential election, sorted by the number of days until the election.

If Ginsburg is successfully replaced, she will set the new record for "proximity to an election and still replaced". In fact, as soon as Trump even nominates someone, she will be the first retired/died justice to have even had a nomination for a replacement this close to an election.

Scalia was the opposite, and set a new record for a justice not being replaced before an election in terms of proximity to the election.

Anyhow, this chart kind of shows that there is not a lot of historical consistency on this issue, and underscores my point that maybe we need to formalize some rules about it.
Justice Date of vacancy Days before election Nomination before election? Confirmation before election?
S. Minton Oct. 15, 1956 22 No No
R. Taney Oct. 12, 1864 27 No No
R. B. Ginsburg Sept. 18, 2020 46 ? ?
R. Trimble Aug. 25, 1828 67 No No
J. McKinley July 19, 1852 106 Yes No
C. E. Hughes June 16, 1916 144 Yes Yes
P. V. Daniel May 31, 1860 159 No No
H. Baldwin April 21, 1844 194 Yes No
M. R. Waite March 23, 1888 228 Yes Yes
A. Scalia Feb. 13, 2016 269 Yes No
A. Moore Jan. 26, 1804 281 Yes Yes
J. P. Bradley Jan. 22, 1892 291 Yes Yes
O. W. Holmes Jan. 12, 1932 301 Yes Yes
J. R. Lamar Jan. 2, 1916 310 Yes Yes
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Some of what you quote are from the Preamble, which was explaining why it was written and including what it does. The actual Articles provide it's requirements.

And no, we are not stuck with things written 200+ years ago. There is a method for changing it. It has been used 27 times and includes (among other changes) freeing the slaves, giving blacks voting rights, giving women voting rights, banning alcohol, legalizing alcohol, lowering the voting age to 18, election of Senators, presidential succession, limiting the president to two terms, and combining the president and vice president as a team elected together.
The fact that it’s had to have been changed 27 times just makes it more evident how imperfect it is. Many of the amendments that have been added after Jefferson’s first 10, were done as a result of major heartache to the American Public and as a result of civil (if not military) unrest. All the while, the American citizens were being treated extraordinarily unjustly. If the courts had just made the correct decision of interpretation, several of the amendments would not have been necessary at all.

It’s not like most of the courts bad decisions have been 9-0 (or the equivalent) A number of justices haven’t been against interpreting the constitution as a document that should evolve (interpretationally) from its initial construction. Multiple justices from the country’s inception have held my viewpoint... it’s just that they have traditionally been outnumbered by constructionists due to the rural nature of America and by extension the Executive / judicial branch. That is something I want to see change because the constitution is still fundamentally flawed and to fix it takes what should be an unnecessarily burdensome level of effort from the American people when it would be much more appropriate for judges as the arbiters of justice, are tasked with in upholding the ideals of the preamble.
 
Last edited:

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
22,724
1,934
113
74
The fact that it’s had to have been changed 27 times just makes it more evident how imperfect it is. Many of the amendments that have been added after Jefferson’s first 10, were done as a result of major heartache to the American Public and as a result of civil (if not military) unrest. All the while, the American citizens were being treated extraordinarily unjustly. If the courts had just made the correct decision of interpretation, several of the amendments would not have been necessary at all.

It’s not like most of the courts bad decisions have been 9-0 (or the equivalent) A number of justices haven’t been against interpreting the constitution as a document that should evolve (interpretationally) from its initial construction. Multiple justices from the country’s inception have held my viewpoint... it’s just that they have traditionally been outnumbered by constructionists due to the rural nature of America and by extension the Executive / judicial branch. That is something I want to see change because the constitution is still fundamentally flawed and to fix it takes what should be an unnecessarily burdensome level of effort from the American people when it would be much more appropriate for judges as the arbiters of justice, are tasked with in upholding the ideals of the preamble.
O-kay, So you have to complaints about the Constitution.

1. It is outdated

2. It has been updated too many times proving it is imperfect.

3. Multiple justices have agreed with you...but not enough to do anything about it. They were outnumbered. That's the way decisions are rendered! By the way they haven't held your viewpoint. Like all of us here you weren't here yet for many of their decisions. You hold their view point.

4. You take it as a given that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Apparently many people do not and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
 

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
22,724
1,934
113
74
Just to give this all some perspective. Here is a chart of all the justices that retired/died within one year of a presidential election, sorted by the number of days until the election.

If Ginsburg is successfully replaced, she will set the new record for "proximity to an election and still replaced". In fact, as soon as Trump even nominates someone, she will be the first retired/died justice to have even had a nomination for a replacement this close to an election.

Scalia was the opposite, and set a new record for a justice not being replaced before an election in terms of proximity to the election.

Anyhow, this chart kind of shows that there is not a lot of historical consistency on this issue, and underscores my point that maybe we need to formalize some rules about it.
JusticeDate of vacancyDays before electionNomination before election?Confirmation before election?
S. MintonOct. 15, 195622NoNo
R. TaneyOct. 12, 186427NoNo
R. B. GinsburgSept. 18, 202046??
R. TrimbleAug. 25, 182867NoNo
J. McKinleyJuly 19, 1852106YesNo
C. E. HughesJune 16, 1916144YesYes
P. V. DanielMay 31, 1860159NoNo
H. BaldwinApril 21, 1844194YesNo
M. R. WaiteMarch 23, 1888228YesYes
A. ScaliaFeb. 13, 2016269YesNo
A. MooreJan. 26, 1804281YesYes
J. P. BradleyJan. 22, 1892291YesYes
O. W. HolmesJan. 12, 1932301YesYes
J. R. LamarJan. 2, 1916310YesYes
In 1828, 1860, 1844,, 1804, 1852 we might allow a bit more time since communication and transportation took a little more time than today. Also, people often do not have a choice of when they die. If I die after the election, I'm good for three more years of not dying just before an election.
 
Last edited:

noble cane

I.T.S. Head Coach
Feb 25, 2002
7,440
1,444
113
Paging Judge Dredd
Paging Judge Dredd

We need you to come and save us.

Because you ARE the LAW!
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
O-kay, So you have to complaints about the Constitution.

1. It is outdated

2. It has been updated too many times proving it is imperfect.

3. Multiple justices have agreed with you...but not enough to do anything about it. They were outnumbered. That's the way decisions are rendered! By the way they haven't held your viewpoint. Like all of us here you weren't here yet for many of their decisions. You hold their view point.

4. You take it as a given that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Apparently many people do not and swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution.
1. Yes.

2. I wouldn't say it's been updated too many times... I would say the fact that it has been updated so many times proves the original was imperfect and that even existing modifications haven't proved to be enough as time has gone by.

3. Semantics. Our viewpoints agree. Yes, they were outnumbered, but some of those outnumbered were on the right side of history, as proven by the changes that occurred later at great expense (in time, money, and suffering) to the American people. That's why I don't want constructionists appointed, because they have (historically) tended to restrict the justice and liberty for certain Americans more than those Justices who have believed an evolving interpretation of the Constitution was more appropriate. (Slaves, Women, Minorities, Gays, The Poor, etc...)

4. My belief is that you (or any public servant / military member) are taking an oath to protect and defend the ideals which the Constitution was created to insure... those being the ones listed in the Preamble (the only ideals we value for ourselves which persist, unaltered through time). The articles of the constitution themselves are just the imperfect blueprints that we were provided on how to breath life into those ideals. You're not protecting a piece of paper. You're protecting what it represents. If you have cause to believe your actions (even if they go by the letter of the blueprints provided) will be to the detriment of any of those items listed in the Preamble, then you aren't protecting and defending the Constitution and you've reneged on your oath.
 
Last edited:

shon46

I.T.S. Position Coach
Sep 16, 2008
2,286
272
83
UK
Imperfect as our system may be, It was created bc the systems in Europe sucked and still suck compared to ours. I get that these discussions are a critique of our current system and it’s intent is to spark the conversation to make a better system but I would take our system over any other countries system any day of week!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and okie51

okie51

I.T.S. Junior
Gold Member
Dec 4, 2003
642
263
63
Imperfect as our system may be, It was created bc the systems in Europe sucked and still suck compared to ours. I get that these discussions are a critique of our current system and it’s intent is to spark the conversation to make a better system but I would take our system over any other countries system any day of week!
You nailed it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU Man and TUMe

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Imperfect as our system may be, It was created bc the systems in Europe sucked and still suck compared to ours. I get that these discussions are a critique of our current system and it’s intent is to spark the conversation to make a better system but I would take our system over any other countries system any day of week!
I would love to see our Constitution revised to contain a civil rights section modeled after that of Ch. 1 of the Netherlands (which they revised in 1983)
They have articles regarding the protection of privacy, the country's environment, equality (in equal circumstances), general health, public housing, education, employment, the distribution of wealth etc... in addition to the liberty protections we enjoy.

They also more clearly define things like when it should be required for their legislature to declare war. They also set an age limit on their Supreme Court.

There are certainly a plethora of items that we could grab from other countries that would improve our Constitution.
 
Last edited:

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
Probably this could most quickly come into effect by moving to the Netherlands.
I'd love to, but I don't have the coin to emigrate. You have to have some fairly large amount of money saved, as well as have a means of employment lined up, and be able to speak the language (on top of some other things I'm sure). That's one place where our countries are very different... their immigration standards are far and away tougher than ours. Something that conservatives should like!
 

Clong83a

I.T.S. Junior
Nov 15, 2014
748
605
93
In 1828, 1860, 1844,, 1804, 1852 we might allow a bit more time since communication and transportation took a little more time than today. Also, people often do not have a choice of when they die. If I die after the election, I'm good for three more years of not dying just before an election.
That's a good point, for sure. And in 1956, when Minton died, it was only 22 days from an election so the modern threshold for a "no nominee or vote" precedent is arguably at about the 1 month timeframe.

Anyhow, I didn't have a real point in posting that other than to share information in a hopefully neutral way. Wasn't trying to say the new nominee should or shouldn't get a hearing. My only thought is that whatever we do, we ought to draft some standards when this is over so that we don't end up with these highly partisan and distracting SC fights around election times like this.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Head Coach
Apr 18, 2011
6,245
397
83
la la land
I would love to see our Constitution revised to contain a civil rights section modeled after that of Ch. 1 of the Netherlands (which they revised in 1983)
They have articles regarding the protection of privacy, the country's environment, equality (in equal circumstances), general health, public housing, education, employment, the distribution of wealth etc
------------------------------

we have that; " entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness". There is no guarentee of sucess. That rests with the individual, not the government.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
I would love to see our Constitution revised to contain a civil rights section modeled after that of Ch. 1 of the Netherlands (which they revised in 1983)
They have articles regarding the protection of privacy, the country's environment, equality (in equal circumstances), general health, public housing, education, employment, the distribution of wealth etc
------------------------------

we have that; " entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit happiness". There is no guarentee of sucess. That rests with the individual, not the government.
Where did anyone say anything about guaranteed success?
 

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
22,724
1,934
113
74
That's a good point, for sure. And in 1956, when Minton died, it was only 22 days from an election so the modern threshold for a "no nominee or vote" precedent is arguably at about the 1 month timeframe.

Anyhow, I didn't have a real point in posting that other than to share information in a hopefully neutral way. Wasn't trying to say the new nominee should or shouldn't get a hearing. My only thought is that whatever we do, we ought to draft some standards when this is over so that we don't end up with these highly partisan and distracting SC fights around election times like this.
I found it interesting. Amazing how many stay on until death. I was surprised that Taney stayed on even after the Civil War overturned his Dred Scott verdict. Doing a little reading, the last four Chief Justices have been chosen by a Republican President and served 67 years with all but Roberts dying in office and he is, of course, still around.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
I found it interesting. Amazing how many stay on until death. I was surprised that Taney stayed on even after the Civil War overturned his Dred Scott verdict. Doing a little reading, the last four Chief Justices have been chosen by a Republican President and served 67 years with all but Roberts dying in office and he is, of course, still around.
There were some very large differences in judicial opinion between those Chief Justices.

I agree with Truman in his evaluation of Warren...President Harry S. Truman wrote in his tribute to Warren, which appeared in the California Law Review in 1970, "[t]he Warren record as Chief Justice has stamped him in the annals of history as the man who read and interpreted the Constitution in relation to its ultimate intent. He sensed the call of the times-and he rose to the call."

That's exactly the kind of person I believe we should be looking for during every nomination cycle: jurists that are willing to see the call of the times and rise to the call.
 

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
I was referring to the second paragraph which implies the government will provide.
I didn't say they provided anything. Their constitution says the lawmakers are responsible for insuring that there is adequate housing, education, healthcare, etc... Not that they provide those things, but that they are responsible for insuring that there is not a group of people lacking any of those various protected items. In a sense, the US already kind of does this, but it's not guaranteed, and there are certainly groups in our country that are lacking real access to those items.
 

aTUfan

I.T.S. Head Coach
Apr 18, 2011
6,245
397
83
la la land
I didn't say they provided anything. Their constitution says the lawmakers are responsible for insuring that there is adequate housing, education, healthcare, etc... Not that they provide those things, but that they are responsible for insuring that there is not a group of people lacking any of those various protected items. In a sense, the US already kind of does this, but it's not guaranteed, and there are certainly groups in our country that are lacking real access to those items.
" lawmakers are responsible for insuring" == the government will supply
 
  • Like
Reactions: maverickfp

astonmartin708

I.T.S. University President
Apr 17, 2012
12,090
3,479
113
" lawmakers are responsible for insuring" == the government will supply
No, it just gives them more power to regulate industries to insure that things like the housing market or the healthcare market aren't unusable for a large portion of their population. The people are still paying for those services, they just have a government that's constitutionally bound to primarily look out for all peoples' interest rather than the industry's (wealthy individuals') interest.
 

Latest posts