One thing we can all I agree on....I think

[mule_eer]

Originality is one school of thought on the Constitution. It isn't the only school of thought. Of the justices currently serving, none are really originalists. That guy was Scalia. Gorsuch was a clerk for Kennedy, I believe. He does have some lean toward originalism though.

Push comes to shove, I want smart, contemplative people on the Supreme Court. I'm not going to agree with every court decision, much less every individual justice's decision. I'm good with that. If we appoint people from only one school of thought, there's no debate. That's not useful. It's like having 100% of the House being from one party. It's a bad idea. That may not be the best analogy though. Party diversity doesn't seem to get us debate anymore, at least not debate that leads to anything constructive.

 

[Popeer]

Didn't that ruling uphold the Constitution?

Depends on who you ask. People love to throw around the 10th Amendment as if it nullified everything that was written in the original document -- "states rights" and all that. The Court ruled unanimously in Brown that "separate but equal" as then practiced violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection, because the plaintiffs showed that "separate" was nowhere near "equal."

And as for the Second Amendment worshippers, even Justice Scalia -- who nobody would ever say was anything but an Originalist conservative -- wrote in the majority opinion of Heller vs. DC that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited.

 

[atlkvb]

Originality is one school of thought on the Constitution. It isn't the only school of thought. Of the justices currently serving, none are really originalists. That guy was Scalia. Gorsuch was a clerk for Kennedy, I believe. He does have some lean toward originalism though.

Push comes to shove, I want smart, contemplative people on the Supreme Court. I'm not going to agree with every court decision, much less every individual justice's decision. I'm good with that. If we appointment people from only one school of thought, there's no debate. That's not useful. It's like having 100% of the House being from one party. It's a bad idea. That may not be the best analogy though. Party diversity doesn't seem to get us debate anymore, at least not debate that leads to anything constructive.

Is the Constitution open for interpretation?

Yes, to a certain extent within its defined parameters.

Is it open to revision?

No, under no circumstances. Particularly if Justices write new Laws beyond Constitutional provisions.

(Unless we ammend it or form a new one through a Constitutional Convention of the States, it is the limit of our Law and should be interpreted as such)

 

[PriddyBoy]

And as for the Second Amendment worshippers, even Justice Scalia -- who nobody would ever say was anything but an Originalist conservative -- wrote in the majority opinion of Heller vs. DC that Second Amendment rights are not unlimited.

#2A is limited, but limitations cannot go unchecked.

I appreciate the 10th, but the 14th kicks it's *** all day long, IMO.

 

[Popeer]

#2A is limited, but limitations cannot go unchecked.

Which is why the Court ruled in favor of Heller and not DC.

 

[PriddyBoy]

Which is why the Court ruled in favor of Heller and not DC.

And now we've gone full circle back to Garland.

Do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do!

(Do!) doe, a deer, a female deer
(Re!) ray, a drop of golden sun
(Mi!) me, a name I call myself
(Fa!) far, a long, long way to run
(So!) sew, a needle pulling thread
(La!) la, a note to follow so
(Ti!) tea, a drink with jam and bread
That will bring us back to do oh oh oh

The Sound Of Elevator Music

 

[atlkvb]

And now we've gone full circle back to Garland.

Do, re, mi, fa, so, la, ti, do!

(Do!) doe, a deer, a female deer
(Re!) ray, a drop of golden sun
(Mi!) me, a name I call myself
(Fa!) far, a long, long way to run
(So!) sew, a needle pulling thread
(La!) la, a note to follow so
(Ti!) tea, a drink with jam and bread
That will bring us back to do oh oh oh

The Sound Of Elevator Music

you are one sick individual Man! [laughing]

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Didn't that ruling uphold the Constitution?

They provided a new interpretation of the The Equal Protection Clause. Prior to that, states could provide separate but EQUAL educational opportunities (but obviously not equal). This case basically overturned the earlier case of Plessy vs Ferguson that allowed Jim Crow laws in the south. The Equal Protection Clause was thought to be a state issue prior to that.

 

[Popeer]

And now we've gone full circle back to Garland.

I'm not sure what connection you think Heller v DC has to Garland. He simply voted in favor of an en banc review of the case, he wasn't a member of the panel that wrote the ruling invalidating the ban, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

 

[PriddyBoy]

They provided a new interpretation of the The Equal Protection Clause. Prior to that, states could provide separate but EQUAL educational opportunities (but obviously not equal). This case basically overturned the earlier case of Plessy vs Ferguson that allowed Jim Crow laws in the south. The Equal Protection Clause was thought to be a state issue prior to that.

Popeer is right. I suppose it depends on who you ask. In my opinion, the 14th was properly interpreted and upheld.

 

[PriddyBoy]

I'm not sure what connection you think Heller v DC has to Garland. He simply voted in favor of an en banc review of the case, he wasn't a member of the panel that wrote the ruling invalidating the ban, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

You must be kidding. He showed himself as to how he would have voted. That's good to know, however.

 

[mule_eer]

You must be kidding. He showed himself as to how he would have voted. That's good to know, however.

His vote for rereview of the initial decision doesn't necessarily imply that he would have decided differently. Even if he had, that decision was tried in federal court. It was seen on appeal, meaning that the initial decision could have legitimate questions about the reasoning. The appeals decision was heard by the Supreme Court, meaning that the reasoning could be questioned again. Anything that makes it to the Supreme Court isn't a gimme. You are over simplifying the process and the case in question by making it sound like this was an easy case.

 

[dave]

No you want them to think like you do as related to the constitution. Look at Gorsuch, some would say his interpretation of the Constitution is draconian. Holy cow, he just had a decision overturned by the US Supreme Court 8-0 which tells me he swung and missed pretty badly. But, he seems like an honorable man and I would not oppose him even if his views differ from mine. We need a diverse court. It is healthy.

You really should learn to think for yourself. You soud like an idiot repeatig media ********. Read about the Gorsuch ruling that was overturned and then report back why you feel stupid for going there.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

You really should learn to think for yourself. You soud like an idiot repeatig media ********. Read about the Gorsuch ruling that was overturned and then report back why you feel stupid for going there.

Yeah, 8-0, those stupid SC judges, all eight of them, unanimous.

 

[Mntneer]

Yeah, 8-0, those stupid SC judges, all eight of them, unanimous.

No, really. If you understand the law, you understand why he ruled the way he did and why the SC ruled the way they did.

 

[dave]

Yeah, 8-0, those stupid SC judges, all eight of them, unanimous.

I wouldnt expect you to understand because facebook folks didnt get it either.

 

[Popeer]

You must be kidding. He showed himself as to how he would have voted. That's good to know, however.

Really? How does voting for an en banc review vs. a panel in any way show which way he might have voted had the full court heard the case? You're reaching for evidence that Garland is some ultra-liberal, just as opponents of Gorsuch are reaching for evidence that he's to the right of Genghis Khan.

 

[PriddyBoy]

Really? How does voting for an en banc review vs. a panel in any way show which way he might have voted had the full court heard the case? You're reaching for evidence that Garland is some ultra-liberal, just as opponents of Gorsuch are reaching for evidence that he's to the right of Genghis Khan.

I'm sorry. It was not definitive as to how he'd vote on the SC, but his comments did raise some eyebrows. Better?

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

Yeah, 8-0, those stupid SC judges, all eight of them, unanimous.

He ruled the way he had to rule based on the established precedent that had been established for the lower courts. In essence, he followed the process exactly despite his own personal feelings towards it.

I get that you are butthurt about Garland, but we are past that now. Most on here agreed that he should have at least had a hearing, but that's not what happened. There is zero basis for the left to be in opposition to Gorsuch other than playing payback politics. I would love to hear your analysis of why you think he shouldn't be confirmed.

And I'll be fact checking you against the facebook feeds to see if you have any originality.

 

[mule_eer]

He ruled the way he had to rule based on the established precedent that had been established for the lower courts. In essence, he followed the process exactly despite his own personal feelings towards it.

I get that you are butthurt about Garland, but we are past that now. Most on here agreed that he should have at least had a hearing, but that's not what happened. There is zero basis for the left to be in opposition to Gorsuch other than playing payback politics. I would love to hear your analysis of why you think he shouldn't be confirmed.

And I'll be fact checking you against the facebook feeds to see if you have any originality.

It's totally payback politics, and they (the Dems) aren't being smart with this play. If you look at the list of potential nominees Trump put forward during the election, Gorsuch is probably the most moderate. If they were successful in blocking him, the next nominee is going to be more conservative. Winning this battle would be losing the war. Second, the filibuster isn't going to stop his confirmation. That means that you've only made the confirmation process easier going forward when the vote is not able to be fillibustered. On top of that, you're showing that you are playing political games with appointments. It's foolish.

The time to push the Garland issue was last year. They didn't keep that issue in the public eye then. Bad politics then, and following it up with more bad politics is just stupid. Confirm the guy. Save your bullets for a fightbthat you might be able to win.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

It's totally payback politics, and they (the Dems) aren't being smart with this play.

Of course it is. There is zero reason to oppose Gorsuch. This is the absolute best case they could hope for under the present circumstances.

 

[Popeer]

Of course it is. There is zero reason to oppose Gorsuch. This is the absolute best case they could hope for under the present circumstances.

There may be some legitimate concerns about Gorsuch, but you could say that about any nominee. I emailed both of my senators asking them not to join the filibuster -- we can't change the appalling disrespect McConnell showed to both Garland and (mostly) president Obama, totally unworthy of a senator, but the tit-for-tat bullsh*t has to stop sometime and now would be a good time. Unfortunately, both of them signed on for the obstruction.

 

[Mntneer]

It's totally payback politics, and they (the Dems) aren't being smart with this play. If you look at the list of potential nominees Trump put forward during the election, Gorsuch is probably the most moderate. If they were successful in blocking him, the next nominee is going to be more conservative. Winning this battle would be losing the war. Second, the filibuster isn't going to stop his confirmation. That means that you've only made the confirmation process easier going forward when the vote is not able to be fillibustered. On top of that, you're showing that you are playing political games with appointments. It's foolish.

The time to push the Garland issue was last year. They didn't keep that issue in the public eye then. Bad politics then, and following it up with more bad politics is just stupid. Confirm the guy. Save your bullets for a fightbthat you might be able to win.

They're cutting their noses off to spite their face.

DickConnell goes Nukelar.... 50 votes becomes the standard.... a liberal judge retires or dies.... Trump appoints someone REALLY far right.... Dems are left helpless.

They should show good faith with Gorsuch, to prevent a real extremist from being nominated when it matters. Because what these idiots fail to realize is they are fighting over a conservative judge replacing a conservative judge.

 

[PriddyBoy]

They're cutting their noses off to spite their face.

DickConnell goes Nukelar.... 50 votes becomes the standard.... a liberal judge retires or dies.... Trump appoints someone REALLY far right.... Dems are left helpless.

They should show good faith with Gorsuch, to prevent a real extremist from being nominated when it matters. Because what these idiots fail to realize is they are fighting over a conservative judge replacing a conservative judge.

Trump will almost certainly appoint another Justice during his term ( Libs, please start another thread elsewhere about Trump's impending impeachment) after Gorsuch is confirmed. Trump may not be the one Dems should fret over as he is somewhat moderate. The next Chief Exec. may be way more extreme, be it Democrat, Republican or Other. Extremism is not good on the SC from any political party, IMO.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

They're cutting their noses off to spite their face.

DickConnell goes Nukelar.... 50 votes becomes the standard.... a liberal judge retires or dies.... Trump appoints someone REALLY far right.... Dems are left helpless.

They should show good faith with Gorsuch, to prevent a real extremist from being nominated when it matters. Because what these idiots fail to realize is they are fighting over a conservative judge replacing a conservative judge.

Agree, and it goes both ways. All the more liberal SC judges remain on until next election, when Trump loses, and the next Pres, a democrat, gets their pick with only 50 needed.

 

[atlkvb]

There may be some legitimate concerns about Gorsuch, but you could say that about any nominee. I emailed both of my senators asking them not to join the filibuster -- we can't change the appalling disrespect McConnell showed to both Garland and (mostly) president Obama, totally unworthy of a senator, but the tit-for-tat bullsh*t has to stop sometime and now would be a good time. Unfortunately, both of them signed on for the obstruction.

That's fine, but were you equally concerned about Democratic fillibusters in 2013? who got your letters during any of this?

If there are differences in the Senate, then debate should be had, people should vote their conscience, they should vote on behalf of their constituents, but they should vote. That’s what they’re there to do. And ultimately, if you got a majority of folks who believe in something, then it should be able to pass." – President Barack Obama



“[Democrats would] much prefer the risk of up-or-down votes in majority rule than the risk of continued total obstruction. That’s the bottom line, no matter who’s in power.” – Sen. Chuck Schumer, D, N.Y.



Finally:
Perhaps one of the most prescient and telling quotes for the situation was uttered by then-Majority Leader Harry Reid as he walked out of the chamber following the 2013 vote:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations




- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/...mpaign=newslettertraffic#sthash.HUz3eK6w.dpuf

 

[Popeer]

That's fine, but were you equally concerned about Democratic fillibusters in 2013? who got your letters during any of this?

What Democratic filibusters in 2013? You need to read some history. Democrats controlled the Senate but didn't have 60 votes -- the same as with the GOP now -- and McConnell and company were holding up every.Single.nomination that Obama put forward, just because Obama.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations

By November Reid had had enough and decided to change the rules for all nominees below the Supreme Court. He was warned not to do it even by some Democrats, but he felt he had no choice given the number of GOP filibusters of what were once considered routine nominations -- they had even filibustered one of their own former colleagues -- and a Republican to boot -- when Chuck Hagel was nominated for Defense just because Obama had nominated him.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

You really should learn to think for yourself. You soud like an idiot repeatig media ********. Read about the Gorsuch ruling that was overturned and then report back why you feel stupid for going there.

quit being a d!k. He wrote a bad decision and was slapped down

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

quit being a d!k. He wrote a bad decision and was slapped down

Quit being a friggin moron and study up on it. He was bound by precedent at the lower court's level. Read a little bit.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

They're cutting their noses off to spite their face.

DickConnell goes Nukelar.... 50 votes becomes the standard.... a liberal judge retires or dies.... Trump appoints someone REALLY far right.... Dems are left helpless.

They should show good faith with Gorsuch, to prevent a real extremist from being nominated when it matters. Because what these idiots fail to realize is they are fighting over a conservative judge replacing a conservative judge.

And vice versa the next time democrats are in charge.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

quit being a d!k. He wrote a bad decision and was slapped down

He didn't write a bad decision. He wrote a decision based on bad precedent/law that the SCOTUS has now corrected. He did his job.

 

[atlkvb]

What Democratic filibusters in 2013? You need to read some history. Democrats controlled the Senate but didn't have 60 votes -- the same as with the GOP now -- and McConnell and company were holding up every.Single.nomination that Obama put forward, just because Obama.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...nate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations

By November Reid had had enough and decided to change the rules for all nominees below the Supreme Court. He was warned not to do it even by some Democrats, but he felt he had no choice given the number of GOP filibusters of what were once considered routine nominations -- they had even filibustered one of their own former colleagues -- and a Republican to boot -- when Chuck Hagel was nominated for Defense just because Obama had nominated him.

If you want to go back to who started this nonsense, look no further than the Democrats doing the same delaying to (GW) Bush's appointees. We can dredge up as much history on delay and obstructing on judicial fillibusters and other appointees as much as you want, but for the start of this in the modern era try 2003 and Bush.

There never used to be a 60 vote threshold for judicial nominees...who changed that?

(here see for yourself)
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork....us-senate-confirmations-judges-federal-courts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_judicial_appointment_controversies

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

He didn't write a bad decision. He wrote a decision based on bad precedent/law that the SCOTUS has now corrected. He did his job.

8-0.....sounds like a whitewash to me.

 

[TarHeelEer]

8-0.....sounds like a whitewash to me.

Sounds like you're not as middle of the road as you think you are.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

Sounds like you're not as middle of the road as you think you are.

I have said since his nomination that I support him 100%. What more do you want. My comment on his decision was based on a comment somebody made that he always follows the Constitution. My response was that his decision was overturned 8-0 so maybe he doesn't. .....

 

[WVUCOOPER]

8-0.....sounds like a whitewash to me.

Again, not a bad decision - a decision restricted to a bad law/precedent. Ergo (latin) he did his job as a jurist , since he is not a legislator.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

I have said since his nomination that I support him 100%. What more do you want. My comment on his decision was based on a comment somebody made that he always follows the Constitution. My response was that his decision was overturned 8-0 so maybe he doesn't. .....

I've posted it multiple times. I don't know how better to explain it to you. In crayon?

In the lower court, he was bound to specific precedent which limited the decision he could make. The high court had no such boundary as they weren't bound to the same restrictive precedent. His decision (that he said he didn't agree with) was based on following the law that had been established for the lower court, but he had no choice. The SCOTUS rightfully overturned it by applying a broader set of precedents.

Little bit of Google will do you wonders. You've shown your *** from jump street on this one and still refuse to back down when you are clearly speaking from an uninformed position.

 

[dave]

quit being a d!k. He wrote a bad decision and was slapped down

No he didnt. Either read up on it or be a fuking idiot. Your choic.

 

[dave]

8-0.....sounds like a whitewash to me.

Stupid is as stupid does.