Toggle sidebar

When Kennedy retires this summer, Trump has said he will pick from the same list

O

op2

Senior
Mar 16, 2014
11,174
547
103
WVPATX said:
of Conservative jurists. The court moving further right and back to the Constitution. That will leave 84 year old Ginsberg and 78 year old, Steven Breyer, as the two oldest on the court. We could see a generational shift on the court.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/01/trump-will-stick-to-campaign-list-for-next-scotus-pick/
Click to expand...

Now now, there is a POTUS election in only 3.5 years after that so it's only fair to wait until we see who wins that election before appointing the next SOCTUS justice.
 
Brushy Bill

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,628
102,608
113
If Cruz's Senate seat is guaranteed to an R I'd love for him to be the next appointee.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Op2 said:
Now now, there is a POTUS election in only 3.5 years after that so it's only fair to wait until we see who wins that election before appointing the next SOCTUS justice.
Click to expand...

Kennedy likely retiring this summer. He is a swing jurist. Will be replaced by a conservative making it 5-4. If Ginsberg or Breyer retire and Trump is still in office, a generational shift.
 
Brushy Bill

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,628
102,608
113
WVPATX said:
Kennedy likely retiring this summer. He is a swing jurist. Will be replaced by a conservative making it 5-4. If Ginsberg or Breyer retire and Trump is still in office, a generational shift.
Click to expand...
:cool2:[banana][jumpingsmile][smoke]:boom::raised_hands:[thumb2]
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Boomboom521 said:
Let me guess, all depending on your opinion of the case, right?

He didn't seem bound to any ideological commitments.
Click to expand...

Boom are you honestly suggesting the framers would have ever written in the Constitution the right for two men to marry? No way. He brought this new right up out of whole cloth.
 
J

JMichael

Redshirt
Jul 7, 2001
619
3
18
The Right is completely against the constitution of the Untied States. They want to make laws in their own image. You cannot be for the Constitution and for a conservative judge. They simply do not go together.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
JMichael said:
The Right is completely against the constitution of the Untied States. They want to make laws in their own image. You cannot be for the Constitution and for a conservative judge. They simply do not go together.
Click to expand...

Exactly backward. Libs for a "living" constitution that means whatever is popular with society at that time. Conservatives favor originalism, what the Founders intended.

The Founders gave us ways to "update" or change the Constitution, but libs don't want to do that because the people would never vote for those changes. Libs could also pass new laws, but again they can't get that done. So they "adjust" the wording of the Constitution since unelected judges can do that without input from the people. Nice try.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
dave said:
Separation of Church and state is a liberal lie.
Click to expand...

I knew one of you idiots would say that.

It's right in the First Amendment, you know that thing the right has no clue what half of it says but accuses liberals of throwing it out.

And you do realize the main intent of the founding of the country; the main reason some of the British left England?
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
Except separation of church and state.
Click to expand...

Please explain where in the Constitution it states "Separation of Church and state?" The fact is, it does not. To save you google time, the phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut who feared the U.S. would develop a national church like the Church of England. Jefferson was allaying their fears.

We are a long way away from Jefferson intent in that letter. Did you know that Christianity was taught in public schools while Jefferson was President and he didn't raise any Constitutional issues with it?

Libs have taken this much, much further than Jefferson ever intended.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
WVPATX said:
Please explain where in the Constitution it states "Separation of Church and state?" The fact is, it does not. To save you google time, the phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Church in Connecticut who feared the U.S. would develop a national church like the Church of England. Jefferson was allaying their fears.

We are a long way away from Jefferson intent in that letter. Did you know that Christianity was taught in public schools while Jefferson was President and he didn't raise any Constitutional issues with it?

Libs have taken this much, much further than Jefferson ever intended.
Click to expand...

Learn to read the First Amendment, idiot.
 
dave

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
countryroads89 said:
I knew one of you idiots would say that.

It's right in the First Amendment, you know that thing the right has no clue what half of it says but accuses liberals of throwing it out.

And you do realize the main intent of the founding of the country; the main reason some of the British left England?
Click to expand...
Just another topic you have no idea about yet you think you do. So surprised.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
Learn to read the First Amendment, idiot.
Click to expand...

I know it well. Where does it say "separation of church and state?"

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Exactly right. Congress shall not establish a national religion. It was the Founders way of protecting the free exercise clause. That was the main thrust of James Madison's famous Memorial and Resistance, in which he argued that the state of Virginia ought not to pay the salaries of the Anglican clergy because that practice was an impediment to a person's free connection to whatever religion his conscience directed him.

Further, The Northwest Ordinance, which the First Congress reenacted, stated: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Bottom line, no national church but religion absolutely legal in the public square.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
WVPATX said:
I know it well. Where does it say "separation of church and state?"

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. Exactly right. Congress shall not establish a national religion. It was the Founders way of protecting the free exercise clause. That was the main thrust of James Madison's famous Memorial and Resistance, in which he argued that the state of Virginia ought not to pay the salaries of the Anglican clergy because that practice was an impediment to a person's free connection to whatever religion his conscience directed him.

Further, The Northwest Ordinance, which the First Congress reenacted, stated: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."

Bottom line, no national church but religion absolutely legal in the public square.
Click to expand...

It says nothing about a national religion. It says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion." Religion. Period.
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
countryroads89 said:
It says nothing about a national religion. It says "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion." Religion. Period.
Click to expand...

Right, exactly, that means no national church. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. But your reading comprehension is so poor, I am certain this will go right over your head. They weren't against public expression of religion, they didn't want a national religion. If they did not want region in the public square, why did they teach Christianity in public schools? If that wasn't considered unConstitutional then, why now?

More importantly, the Danbury letter is most often cited in defense of eliminating religion from he public square.
 
C

countryroads89_rivals

Sophomore
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
WVPATX said:
Right, exactly, that means no national church. Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. But your reading comprehension is so poor, I am certain this will go right over your head. They weren't against public expression of religion, they didn't want a national religion. If they did not want region in the public square, why did they teach Christianity in public schools? If that wasn't considered unConstitutional then, why now?

More importantly, the Danbury letter is most often cited in defense of eliminating religion from he public square.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say Congress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of a religion, it say "Comgress shall pass no laws respecting the establishment of religion."

It's implied plurality, not singularity.

I could provide plenty of good sources for you to read but it is obvious you only read, listen to and watch sources that tell you what you want to hear.
 
Brushy Bill

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,628
102,608
113
JMichael said:
The Right is completely against the constitution of the Untied States. They want to make laws in their own image. You cannot be for the Constitution and for a conservative judge. They simply do not go together.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you were dropped on your head, a lot, when you were a child.
 
Brushy Bill

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,628
102,608
113
Get the federal government out of public education and the separation of Church and State because a moot point.
 
B

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
WVPATX said:
Boom are you honestly suggesting the framers would have ever written in the Constitution the right for two men to marry? No way. He brought this new right up out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...
IMO, they did. In the structure over our government, the founders understood that time would change what would be acceptable by society. This is clear with regards to slavery, as many founders felt its end would come in time.....the constitution was written to allow the adaptation of the nation. As norms change, as the will OF THE PEOPLE changes, so does the Constitution.
 
B

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
WVPATX said:
Exactly backward. Libs for a "living" constitution that means whatever is popular with society at that time. Conservatives favor originalism, what the Founders intended.

The Founders gave us ways to "update" or change the Constitution, but libs don't want to do that because the people would never vote for those changes. Libs could also pass new laws, but again they can't get that done. So they "adjust" the wording of the Constitution since unelected judges can do that without input from the people. Nice try.
Click to expand...
Crap
 
W

WVU82_rivals

Senior
May 29, 2001
199,095
686
0





 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Boomboom521 said:
IMO, they did. In the structure over our government, the founders understood that time would change what would be acceptable by society. This is clear with regards to slavery, as many founders felt its end would come in time.....the constitution was written to allow the adaptation of the nation. As norms change, as the will OF THE PEOPLE changes, so does the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No Boom, the Constitution provides mechanisms to change. The Founders were wise enough to know that times would change and we would need some mechanism to change the law. Thus, the Amendment process or the creation of new laws by Congress. But in each case, the people are involved and must decide either through their representatives. This gives the people their voice.

If unelected judges unilaterally change the meaning of the Constitution, the people have lost their voice. As for slavery, the 14th Amendment was adopted by the will of the people. That is how the Constitution is changed. That is the legal means defined by the Founders for doing so. They did not want an unelected judiciary to take power away from the people. And if judges create rights never intended by the Founders, that is exactly what is happening.

The Constitution is not living, it is as dead as a doornail and means strictly and exactly what the Founders intended it to mean, nothing more nothing less. If you want to change it, use the processes defined by the Founders. Let the people decide. That is how our Constitutional Republic works.
 
Last edited:
B

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Brushy Bill said:
Nope, point out where his statement was factually incorrect or STFU.
Click to expand...
Factually incorrect? Assuming "libs" want to change the words of the Constitution in order to make it a living document. The document was created to be living. Enough space was designed into the Constitution to allow for adaptation of the people.

More so, I don't think liberals want to change the words of the Constitution to fit their desire, I think most liberals (like myself) seek the change intended by the founders, through our representative government and formal law. Take the second admendment for example: liberals (at least most, imo) would seek not to eliminate the right to bear arms, but rather limit the extent of this right in the name of public safety.

Think in terms of free speech. I would defend the right for any American to excercise their right to free speech, but there are limits. These limits are created by the rights of other Americans as well. I do not defend the right for any American to walk into a church and drown out the sermon with profanity in protest of Christianity. These limits shift in many ways in response to social norms, and the constitution has provided the space for these shifts.

The one avenue the founders provided for in our Constitution that we do not use as much as we should today, and could help prevent much of the divisive national rhetoric, are the powers of the States, imo.
 
Brushy Bill

Brushy Bill

Hall of Famer
Mar 31, 2009
52,628
102,608
113
Boomboom521 said:
Factually incorrect? Assuming "libs" want to change the words of the Constitution in order to make it a living document. The document was created to be living. Enough space was designed into the Constitution to allow for adaptation of the people.

More so, I don't think liberals want to change the words of the Constitution to fit their desire, I think most liberals (like myself) seek the change intended by the founders, through our representative government and formal law. [pfftt]Take the second admendment for example: liberals (at least most, imo) would seek not to eliminate the right to bear arms, but rather limit the extent of this right in the name of public safety.

Think in terms of free speech. I would defend the right for any American to excercise their right to free speech, but there are limits. These limits are created by the rights of other Americans as well. I do not defend the right for any American to walk into a church and drown out the sermon with profanity in protest of Christianity. These limits shift in many ways in response to social norms, and the constitution has provided the space for these shifts.

The one avenue the founders provided for in our Constitution that we do not use as much as we should today, and could help prevent much of the divisive national rhetoric, are the powers of the States, imo.
Click to expand...
 
W

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Boomboom521 said:
Factually incorrect? Assuming "libs" want to change the words of the Constitution in order to make it a living document. The document was created to be living. Enough space was designed into the Constitution to allow for adaptation of the people.

More so, I don't think liberals want to change the words of the Constitution to fit their desire, I think most liberals (like myself) seek the change intended by the founders, through our representative government and formal law. Take the second admendment for example: liberals (at least most, imo) would seek not to eliminate the right to bear arms, but rather limit the extent of this right in the name of public safety.

Think in terms of free speech. I would defend the right for any American to excercise their right to free speech, but there are limits. These limits are created by the rights of other Americans as well. I do not defend the right for any American to walk into a church and drown out the sermon with profanity in protest of Christianity. These limits shift in many ways in response to social norms, and the constitution has provided the space for these shifts.

The one avenue the founders provided for in our Constitution that we do not use as much as we should today, and could help prevent much of the divisive national rhetoric, are the powers of the States, imo.
Click to expand...

Wrong Boom. So wrong. Take abortion. You think for a moment the Founders would have written language into the Constitution enabling abortion? Are you kidding me? Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg stated that this was a wrongly decided decision. And many, many libs disagree with your description on the second amendment. They think it was for militia's only. They don't believe in an individual right to own a gun. That is a fact.

You have to understand the original intent of the Founders. That is how to interpret the Constitution. If we want a new law that differs from that original intent, we have a mechanism in the Constitution to change it. Thus, the people are directly involved. It is not a living document that changes with the times. It is the opposite. But we can change it with the times, but the people must be the ones to do so, not unelected judges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom