Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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.
Two thoughts: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.
What would the Dems do in this situation?
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)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.
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.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 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."
Agreed, the times change and the laws should be reviewed to and possibly changed to reflect the changing of the times.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.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.
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 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."
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?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.
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 |
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.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.
O-kay, So you have to complaints about the Constitution.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.
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.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
1. Yes.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.
You nailed it.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)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'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!Probably this could most quickly come into effect by moving to the Netherlands.
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.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.
Where did anyone say anything about guaranteed success?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.
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.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 was referring to the second paragraph which implies the government will provide.Where did anyone say anything about guaranteed success?
There were some very large differences in judicial opinion between those Chief Justices.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.
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.I was referring to the second paragraph which implies the government will provide.
" lawmakers are responsible for insuring" == the government will supplyI 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.
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." lawmakers are responsible for insuring" == the government will supply