The Supreme Court's coming "bias toward conservatism" liberals fear so much, is exactly a bias toward the Constitution (generations, illegal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Supreme Court's coming "bias toward conservatism" that liberals fear so much is, exactly, a bias toward the Constitution....
... and that's exactly what the Court should have.
The Constitution, though not perfect, is fundamentally conservative document. It is designed to limit the size and power of the central government and leave most powers to lower governments ('the States and the People") if they want to exercise them.
The whole idea behind the Constitution, was that the Fed govt it describes, didn't exist until the ratification of the Constitution created it... and the Fed govt didn't have ANY powers until the Constitution gave it some. And the only powers it had, were those given by the Constitution. All others were forbidden to the Fed, but could be exercised by lower governments if they wanted to.
Conservatives are people who support that limitation on the Fed and the reservation of powers to the states etc. Modern liberals are people who constantly try to transfer more and more power to the Fed govt at the expense of the states... whether the Constitution said the Fed could have those powers or not. The often rely on careful "misinterpretation" of the Const to pretend it gives the Fed these expanded powers.
The idea of having a Court that has a "balance" of viewpoints between conservatives and modern liberals, is ludicrous... and is also vital to the continued livelihood of the liberals.
It would be like a bank's Board of Directors having an "equal" balance between officials who wanted the money in the vault kept for the depositors, creditors etc.... and bank robbers who wanted to take it out for themselves. Such a "balance" is antithetical to the purpose the bank was founded for.
And a "balance" between conservatives and modern liberals is antithetical to the freedom the Constitution was designed to protect.
The Supreme Court (and all other Federal courts) should have a "bias toward conservatism", since that would be a bias toward protecting what the Constitution says and commands. In fact the courts should be completely conservative, just as the bank's governing officers should be free of bank robbers... and for the same reason.
The Supreme Court's coming "bias toward conservatism" that liberals fear so much is, exactly, a bias toward the Constitution....
... and that's exactly what the Court should have.
The Constitution, though not perfect, is fundamentally conservative document. It is designed to limit the size and power of the central government and leave most powers to lower governments ('the States and the People") if they want to exercise them.
Amen.
and
MAGA
one SC justice at a time, for decades to come.
Though the short list are a tad older than Gorsuch who started at SC at just 48.
So he will be a justice, in all likelihood, still, in 2050.
The Constitution should be interpreted as written and as the authors intended. If it's interpretation drifts over time with the vagaries of the political thinking of any given current time frame, it's useless. If the legal effect of the Constitution needs to change it should ONLY happen by amendment.
The Supreme Court's coming "bias toward conservatism" that liberals fear so much is, exactly, a bias toward the Constitution....
... and that's exactly what the Court should have.
The Constitution, though not perfect, is fundamentally conservative document. It is designed to limit the size and power of the central government and leave most powers to lower governments ('the States and the People") if they want to exercise them.
The whole idea behind the Constitution, was that the Fed govt it describes, didn't exist until the ratification of the Constitution created it... and the Fed govt didn't have ANY powers until the Constitution gave it some. And the only powers it had, were those given by the Constitution. All others were forbidden to the Fed, but could be exercised by lower governments if they wanted to.
Conservatives are people who support that limitation on the Fed and the reservation of powers to the states etc. Modern liberals are people who constantly try to transfer more and more power to the Fed govt at the expense of the states... whether the Constitution said the Fed could have those powers or not. The often rely on careful "misinterpretation" of the Const to pretend it gives the Fed these expanded powers.
The idea of having a Court that has a "balance" of viewpoints between conservatives and modern liberals, is ludicrous... and is also vital to the continued livelihood of the liberals.
It would be like a bank's Board of Directors having an "equal" balance between officials who wanted the money in the vault kept for the depositors, creditors etc.... and bank robbers who wanted to take it out for themselves. Such a "balance" is antithetical to the purpose the bank was founded for.
And a "balance" between conservatives and modern liberals is antithetical to the freedom the Constitution was designed to protect.
The Supreme Court (and all other Federal courts) should have a "bias toward conservatism", since that would be a bias toward protecting what the Constitution says and commands. In fact the courts should be completely conservative, just as the bank's governing officers should be free of bank robbers... and for the same reason.
The Constitution should be interpreted as written and as the authors intended. If it's interpretation drifts over time with the vagaries of the political thinking of any given current time frame, it's useless. If the legal effect of the Constitution needs to change it should ONLY happen by amendment.
Agreed!
What you left out though, is earlier SC decisions impact later ones as precedent. There is a built in "drift".
Wickard vs Fiburn was poorly decided in 1942, which opened the way for the left to abuse the commerce clause ever since.
The court needs to be more willing to reconsider previous precedent where it violates the principle that I stated above. This was done with Plessy v Ferguson, so there is precedent for doing so. There are plenty others where this should be done. The one that comes immediately to mind for me is Griswold v. Connecticut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snebarekim
Agreed!
What you left out though, is earlier SC decisions impact later ones as precedent. There is a built in "drift".
Wickard vs Fiburn was poorly decided in 1942, which opened the way for the left to abuse the commerce clause ever since.
The court will be 6-3 as soon as Ginsberg is out. Boy, she is a poster child for term limits. What a shriveled old prune. How will they be able to tell when she actually is really dead?
We've seen that the constitution can be interpreted any number of ways, otherwise there would not be a way for laws to be overturned. What conservatives want is a religious bias put into laws. That is actually fine by me. Wait until abortion is thrown to the states and red states make it illegal. That will be entertaining to watch, as those states have to deal with the increase in poverty stricken babies and mothers born in hospitals with no health coverage, high medical expenses, no prenatal care and the resulting never ending costs associated with all of that.
Status:
"Apparently the worst poster on CD"
(set 29 days ago)
27,651 posts, read 16,138,284 times
Reputation: 19074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
We've seen that the constitution can be interpreted any number of ways, otherwise there would not be a way for laws to be overturned. What conservatives want is a religious bias put into laws. That is actually fine by me. Wait until abortion is thrown to the states and red states make it illegal. That will be entertaining to watch, as those states have to deal with the increase in poverty stricken babies and mothers born in hospitals with no health coverage, high medical expenses, no prenatal care and the resulting never ending costs associated with all of that.
We've seen that the constitution can be interpreted any number of ways, otherwise there would not be a way for laws to be overturned. What conservatives want is a religious bias put into laws. That is actually fine by me. Wait until abortion is thrown to the states and red states make it illegal. That will be entertaining to watch, as those states have to deal with the increase in poverty stricken babies and mothers born in hospitals with no health coverage, high medical expenses, no prenatal care and the resulting never ending costs associated with all of that.
This likely will be offset by the loss of universal healthcare. We all know the older generation tends to be more conservative, with the lose of universal healthcare (and likely medicare as well) those older, reliable voters will die out leaving the more liberal, younger generations behind. Over the next generation, the republican policies will be their own downfall.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
