Australian Politics Forum - Another Supreme Court appointment?

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #15 - Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 6:26pm

Panther wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2017 at 12:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2017 at 8:05am:

arent any of you even remotely concerned that the US supreme court rules along political lines instead of the actual law or constitution? They are unelected, unsupervised and a defacto law-making body.

LW58.....read everything you can find regarding American Constitutional History pre-colonial, up until recent times......You will find that the Founding Fathers intended the procedure to be a political process, & it is acceptable to the only ones that count in the matter......the American People.

For over 200+ years the process, & the Court has stood as it is, which means that even though the American People have the power to change the laws (the Constitution) if they felt the Supreme Court needed "regulating", the People have never sought to do so, meaning one thing......they accept the decisions of the Supreme Court ..... like them, or not ........ good, bad, or indifferent.

In the end, the will of the American People triumphs over all --- not to say that some day, in some distant century, or even tomorrow for that matter, they may choose to do otherwise.

what a load of garbage. What rational, democratic person - eg the 'founding fathers' - who literally fought a war against undemocratic institutions would intend for an unelected, unsupervised body such as SCOTUS to be political???

idiot

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11106
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #16 - Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 10:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 6:26pm:

what a load of garbage. What rational, democratic person - eg the 'founding fathers' - who literally fought a war against undemocratic institutions would intend for an unelected, unsupervised body such as SCOTUS to be political???

idiot

Surprise.....surprise....

A Political Process or not?

That's the question.

Source: U.S. Constitution Article 2, Section 2
Quote:

Article 2 Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

The above is the length & breath of the process where a potential Supreme Court Judge is nominated, & eventually confirmed or rejected for a life long post as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Read it over & over if you will....

This is the only section in the entire document that contains or describes the process for nominating & confirming a candidate for Justice of the Supreme Court

Nowhere will you find any limitations, criteria, or qualifications a potential Supreme Court Justice must satisfy
in order to sit on America's Supreme Court for life.

So, what is the process?

First: When a vacancy takes place in the Supreme Court the President of the United States, & only the President of the United States shall nominate someone to fill that vacancy.

Second: The Senate of the United States (there are 100 Senators...Two (2) from every one of the 50 States) must confer & deliberate the President's Nomination, & together with their advice & consent, either confirm or reject the Presidents Nominee. Once a nominee is confirmed by the US Senate, the new Justice to the Supreme will be sworn in, & he/she will start his/her duties immediately thereafter.

So, again, the question......is the process, as written by the Founding Fathers, a Political Process?

The President of the United States is the only person who can nominate anyone to the position of Justice to the Supreme Court. The President of the United States is chosen, & elected to his office by a Political Process. Therefore, it would be logically understood & concluded that any actions he takes while holding office will be understood as political in nature.

Now, who else is involved in the process?

The US Senate, through their advice & consent, all 100 US Senators must vote to confirm or reject the Presidents Nomination.....

Each of the Senators themselves are elected into their office through a political process, or on rare occasion, politically appointed by the State they are representing.....another political appointment/process.

The conferring, & subsequent deliberation of the US Senate on the issue of confirming or rejecting the President's nominee is all done via a political process in Senate Chambers....where votes are taken & recorded.

So, based on the above, the question is....is the choosing, nomination, & confirmation of someone as Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America a Political Process?

Based on the above, & based on the United States Constitution, as written by the Founding Fathers of the United States......there can be but one answer.

Yes, the choosing, nomination, & confirmation of someone as Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is absolutely a Political Process.

Also, the President of the United States can nominate any living person as a prospective Justice of the US Supreme Court....there are no prerequisites, no age limits, the nominee need not even be a judge, or served in any court......they don't even need to be a US citizen....

Prior to 1950 the majority of Supreme Court Judges were not federal judges themselves, nor did they serve in any Court of Law.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 23^rd, 2017 at 10:29pm by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: Another Supreme Court appointment? Reply #17 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 7:38am Then no wonder the Supreme Court is such a pigs breakfast. A court meant to interpret a vague document doesnt require any qualifications and is picked on political whims rather than legal intent. Brilliant.
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11106
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #18 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 9:39am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 7:38am:

Then no wonder the Supreme Court is such a pigs breakfast.

A court meant to interpret a vague document doesnt require any qualifications and is picked on political whims rather than legal intent. Brilliant.

Ah, don't be so quick to dismiss them.......when speaking about what I said....what is possible, because of the Constitutional ambiguity, will that actually come to pass......most probably not.

When picking a Justice of the Supreme Court they do, & have picked those that are held in high legal esteem. They are just simply picked along political lines....with similar beliefs & ideologies as held by those that picked them. In the end, when they decide a case it isn't a willie-nillie decision, it's very well researched by each judges team of legal secretarial assistants (lawyers...even other former lower court judges & prosecutors). Their summations are well documented, & each judges opinion is clearly commented & his/her reasons are set forth for all to critique.....but, their decisions are final, with no chance of appeal.

Back to top

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: Another Supreme Court appointment? Reply #19 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 9:55am They are just simply picked along political lines....with similar beliefs & ideologies as held by those that picked them. And therein lies my entire issue with it. And its not a left wing thing, I have as much an issue with "liberal" judges being picked as "conservative" judges.
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11106
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #20 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 1:19pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 9:55am:

They are just simply picked along political lines....with similar beliefs & ideologies as held by those that picked them.

And therein lies my entire issue with it. And its not a left wing thing, I have as much an issue with "liberal" judges being picked as "conservative" judges.

Liberal here in Australia, or Liberal (Left Wing bordering on Commie) in America??

I can see OUR Liberal judges being picked as "Conservative", but in the States.....never happen....they're miles apart, & their lifelong history & decisions would surefire set them miles apart.....chalk 'n cheese

Ginsburg (Liberal 84 years old) & Kennedy (Swing/Moderate 81 years old) are most apt to retire within 6mos to 2 years......maybe as soon as August.....

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1789 (link)

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 24^th, 2017 at 1:49pm by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #21 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:07pm

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 1:19pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 9:55am:

They are just simply picked along political lines....with similar beliefs & ideologies as held by those that picked them.

And therein lies my entire issue with it. And its not a left wing thing, I have as much an issue with "liberal" judges being picked as "conservative" judges.

Liberal here in Australia, or Liberal (Left Wing bordering on Commie) in America??

I can see OUR Liberal judges being picked as "Conservative", but in the States.....never happen....they're miles apart, & their lifelong history & decisions would surefire set them miles apart.....chalk 'n cheese

https://mgtvkron.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/scotusnew.gif

Ginsburg (Liberal 84 years old) & Kennedy (Swing/Moderate 81 years old) are most apt to retire within 6mos to 2 years......maybe as soon as August.....

List of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1789 (link)

\Are you a complete idiot. Of course I meant liberal as in left wing.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #22 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:16pm

The point I was making is that I have no problem with whomever is chosen for our High Court. I dont care if they were a Labor AG or a Liberal AG or whatever political positions they held in the past. Our High Court - along with every other western democracy - votes solely according to the law and the constitution with zero regard to personal politics or personal beliefs, as they should. We have no reason to applaud nor to fear any new high court judges because they are apolitical. They do not seek to influence policy or to effectively make or break law. They simply rule on it. How simple (and safe) is that?

The idiotic american system has everyone on tenterhooks about who is on the bench because their political beliefs, religious and other issues have as much sway in their rulings as does the constitution or body of law. It is a disgrace and a potentially deadly situation where a sitting president could act clearly unconstitutionally and/or illegally and SCOTUS may support him if their politics match.

the US Supreme Court is a deeply discredited and mocked body by every other western democracy who cannot fathom how a first world country like the US could possibly tolerate an unelected, unsupervised, term-of-life body that rules according to their poltiical and other beleifs and where the law and constitution itself run a distant second place.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11106
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #23 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

The point I was making is that I have no problem with whomever is chosen for our High Court. I dont care if they were a Labor AG or a Liberal AG or whatever political positions they held in the past. Our High Court - along with every other western democracy - votes solely according to the law and the constitution with zero regard to personal politics or personal beliefs, as they should. We have no reason to applaud nor to fear any new high court judges because they are apolitical. They do not seek to influence policy or to effectively make or break law. They simply rule on it. How simple (and safe) is that?

The idiotic american system has everyone on tenterhooks about who is on the bench because their political beliefs, religious and other issues have as much sway in their rulings as does the constitution or body of law. It is a disgrace and a potentially deadly situation where a sitting president could act clearly unconstitutionally and/or illegally and SCOTUS may support him if their politics match.

the US Supreme Court is a deeply discredited and mocked body by every other western democracy who cannot fathom how a first world country like the US could possibly tolerate an unelected, unsupervised, term-of-life body that rules according to their poltiical and other beleifs and where the law and constitution itself run a distant second place.

On it's face that American system seems quite corruptible, regardless the fact that since it's inception, the United States was never a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

But, after reading & studying many U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as the Court itself, along with their members, I was quite amazed how well those decisions & the justices adhered to the Law of the Land.

I can only suggest you take it upon yourself, if it interests you as it does me (I very much enjoy American History, & American Politics), to do the same......since 1998 or so, the internet has become one of the best libraries for doing such research, & is getting broader as we live & breathe.

Back to top

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #24 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:46pm

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

The point I was making is that I have no problem with whomever is chosen for our High Court. I dont care if they were a Labor AG or a Liberal AG or whatever political positions they held in the past. Our High Court - along with every other western democracy - votes solely according to the law and the constitution with zero regard to personal politics or personal beliefs, as they should. We have no reason to applaud nor to fear any new high court judges because they are apolitical. They do not seek to influence policy or to effectively make or break law. They simply rule on it. How simple (and safe) is that?

The idiotic american system has everyone on tenterhooks about who is on the bench because their political beliefs, religious and other issues have as much sway in their rulings as does the constitution or body of law. It is a disgrace and a potentially deadly situation where a sitting president could act clearly unconstitutionally and/or illegally and SCOTUS may support him if their politics match.

the US Supreme Court is a deeply discredited and mocked body by every other western democracy who cannot fathom how a first world country like the US could possibly tolerate an unelected, unsupervised, term-of-life body that rules according to their poltiical and other beleifs and where the law and constitution itself run a distant second place.

On it's face that American system seems quite corruptible, regardless the fact that since it's inception, the United States was never a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

But, after reading & studying many U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as the Court itself, along with their members, I was quite amazed how well those decisions & the justices adhered to the Law of the Land.

I can only suggest you take it upon yourself, if it interests you as it does me (I very much enjoy American History, & American Politics), to do the same......since 1998 or so, the internet has become one of the best libraries for doing such research, & is getting broader as we live & breathe.

Even Roe vs Wade?

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #25 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:18pm

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

The point I was making is that I have no problem with whomever is chosen for our High Court. I dont care if they were a Labor AG or a Liberal AG or whatever political positions they held in the past. Our High Court - along with every other western democracy - votes solely according to the law and the constitution with zero regard to personal politics or personal beliefs, as they should. We have no reason to applaud nor to fear any new high court judges because they are apolitical. They do not seek to influence policy or to effectively make or break law. They simply rule on it. How simple (and safe) is that?

The idiotic american system has everyone on tenterhooks about who is on the bench because their political beliefs, religious and other issues have as much sway in their rulings as does the constitution or body of law. It is a disgrace and a potentially deadly situation where a sitting president could act clearly unconstitutionally and/or illegally and SCOTUS may support him if their politics match.

the US Supreme Court is a deeply discredited and mocked body by every other western democracy who cannot fathom how a first world country like the US could possibly tolerate an unelected, unsupervised, term-of-life body that rules according to their poltiical and other beleifs and where the law and constitution itself run a distant second place.

On it's face that American system seems quite corruptible, regardless the fact that since it's inception, the United States was never a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

But, after reading & studying many U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as the Court itself, along with their members, I was quite amazed how well those decisions & the justices adhered to the Law of the Land.

I can only suggest you take it upon yourself, if it interests you as it does me (I very much enjoy American History, & American Politics), to do the same......since 1998 or so, the internet has become one of the best libraries for doing such research, & is getting broader as we live & breathe.

why do u think that a constitutional republic with elected government is not a democracy? They are the same thing.

AS for correct decisions, how is it that so many decisions have gone 100% aligned with political allegiances? How did the SCOTUS somehow find gay marriage to be legal in a document written by slave owners at a time where women did not have the vote or many legal rights? The decision was contrary to the constitution, but aligned with political allegiances and social agendas. It doesnt matter if they were right or wrong but rather that the decision was based on other than law. Would you be so happy with SCOTUS if there was a democrat majority and they voted to throw the republican president out of office?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11106
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #26 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:46pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

The point I was making is that I have no problem with whomever is chosen for our High Court. I dont care if they were a Labor AG or a Liberal AG or whatever political positions they held in the past. Our High Court - along with every other western democracy - votes solely according to the law and the constitution with zero regard to personal politics or personal beliefs, as they should. We have no reason to applaud nor to fear any new high court judges because they are apolitical. They do not seek to influence policy or to effectively make or break law. They simply rule on it. How simple (and safe) is that?

The idiotic american system has everyone on tenterhooks about who is on the bench because their political beliefs, religious and other issues have as much sway in their rulings as does the constitution or body of law. It is a disgrace and a potentially deadly situation where a sitting president could act clearly unconstitutionally and/or illegally and SCOTUS may support him if their politics match.

the US Supreme Court is a deeply discredited and mocked body by every other western democracy who cannot fathom how a first world country like the US could possibly tolerate an unelected, unsupervised, term-of-life body that rules according to their poltiical and other beleifs and where the law and constitution itself run a distant second place.

On it's face that American system seems quite corruptible, regardless the fact that since it's inception, the United States was never a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

But, after reading & studying many U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as the Court itself, along with their members, I was quite amazed how well those decisions & the justices adhered to the Law of the Land.

I can only suggest you take it upon yourself, if it interests you as it does me (I very much enjoy American History, & American Politics), to do the same......since 1998 or so, the internet has become one of the best libraries for doing such research, & is getting broader as we live & breathe.

Even Roe vs Wade?

Well, Americans that don't like the outcome said it was "Legislating from the Bench", & for those that applaud that decision, praised the Court for defining the privacy rights of women via a 7-2 decision where the US Supreme Court affirmed the legality of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court here
.

Personally, I don't agree with the position of the court, & nowhere can I, IMHO, find language that supports the Court's argument(s).

Nevertheless, it stands as law until either a Constitutional Amendment is passed that states otherwise, or a less sympathetic Court revisits the decision, & finds otherwise....reversing Roe v. Wade

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:54pm by Panther »

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #27 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:10pm

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

The point I was making is that I have no problem with whomever is chosen for our High Court. I dont care if they were a Labor AG or a Liberal AG or whatever political positions they held in the past. Our High Court - along with every other western democracy - votes solely according to the law and the constitution with zero regard to personal politics or personal beliefs, as they should. We have no reason to applaud nor to fear any new high court judges because they are apolitical. They do not seek to influence policy or to effectively make or break law. They simply rule on it. How simple (and safe) is that?

The idiotic american system has everyone on tenterhooks about who is on the bench because their political beliefs, religious and other issues have as much sway in their rulings as does the constitution or body of law. It is a disgrace and a potentially deadly situation where a sitting president could act clearly unconstitutionally and/or illegally and SCOTUS may support him if their politics match.

the US Supreme Court is a deeply discredited and mocked body by every other western democracy who cannot fathom how a first world country like the US could possibly tolerate an unelected, unsupervised, term-of-life body that rules according to their poltiical and other beleifs and where the law and constitution itself run a distant second place.

On it's face that American system seems quite corruptible, regardless the fact that since it's inception, the United States was never a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

But, after reading & studying many U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as the Court itself, along with their members, I was quite amazed how well those decisions & the justices adhered to the Law of the Land.

I can only suggest you take it upon yourself, if it interests you as it does me (I very much enjoy American History, & American Politics), to do the same......since 1998 or so, the internet has become one of the best libraries for doing such research, & is getting broader as we live & breathe.

Even Roe vs Wade?

Well, Americans that don't like the outcome said it was "Legislating from the Bench", & for those that applaud that decision, praised the Court for defining the privacy rights of women via a 7-2 decision where the US Supreme Court affirmed the legality of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court here
.

Personally, I don't agree with the position of the court, & nowhere can I, IMHO, find language that supports the Court's argument(s).

Nevertheless, it stands as law until either a Constitutional Amendment is passed that states otherwise, or a less sympathetic Court revisits the decision, & finds otherwise....reversing Roe v. Wade

rsonally, I don't agree with the position of the court, & nowhere can I, IMHO, find language that supports the Court's argument(s).

So it didnt adhere to the law of the land.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Lord Herbert

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 34441
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #28 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:37pm

bogarde73 wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2017 at 6:58am:

Strong rumours floating around that there could be a resignation from the court in the northern summer.
The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee among others has hinted that an 81 year old justice may be stepping down.

An early opportunity for Trump to get another young conservative judge on the highest court bench.

Excellent news.

Back to top

IP Logged

Panther

Gold Member

Offline

My Heart beats True for
the Red White & Blue...

Posts: 11106
Gender: male

Re: Another Supreme Court appointment?
Reply #29 - Apr 24^th, 2017 at 6:54pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 4:10pm:

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 3:46pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:46pm:

Panther wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2017 at 2:16pm:

The point I was making is that I have no problem with whomever is chosen for our High Court. I dont care if they were a Labor AG or a Liberal AG or whatever political positions they held in the past. Our High Court - along with every other western democracy - votes solely according to the law and the constitution with zero regard to personal politics or personal beliefs, as they should. We have no reason to applaud nor to fear any new high court judges because they are apolitical. They do not seek to influence policy or to effectively make or break law. They simply rule on it. How simple (and safe) is that?

The idiotic american system has everyone on tenterhooks about who is on the bench because their political beliefs, religious and other issues have as much sway in their rulings as does the constitution or body of law. It is a disgrace and a potentially deadly situation where a sitting president could act clearly unconstitutionally and/or illegally and SCOTUS may support him if their politics match.

the US Supreme Court is a deeply discredited and mocked body by every other western democracy who cannot fathom how a first world country like the US could possibly tolerate an unelected, unsupervised, term-of-life body that rules according to their poltiical and other beleifs and where the law and constitution itself run a distant second place.

On it's face that American system seems quite corruptible, regardless the fact that since it's inception, the United States was never a Democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

But, after reading & studying many U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as the Court itself, along with their members, I was quite amazed how well those decisions & the justices adhered to the Law of the Land.

I can only suggest you take it upon yourself, if it interests you as it does me (I very much enjoy American History, & American Politics), to do the same......since 1998 or so, the internet has become one of the best libraries for doing such research, & is getting broader as we live & breathe.

Even Roe vs Wade?

Well, Americans that don't like the outcome said it was "Legislating from the Bench", & for those that applaud that decision, praised the Court for defining the privacy rights of women via a 7-2 decision where the US Supreme Court affirmed the legality of a woman's right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court here
.

Personally, I don't agree with the position of the court, & nowhere can I, IMHO, find language that supports the Court's argument(s).

Nevertheless, it stands as law until either a Constitutional Amendment is passed that states otherwise, or a less sympathetic Court revisits the decision, & finds otherwise....reversing Roe v. Wade

rsonally, I don't agree with the position of the court, & nowhere can I, IMHO, find language that supports the Court's argument(s).

So it didnt adhere to the law of the land.

The Law is that only the Supreme Court has the final interpretation of the Constitution.

Interpretations based on facts & opinions, after investigation & consultation, is the Supreme Court's primary function in coming to a conclusion.

You or I can interpret the same law differently, but as I said before, it's the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution that forms a conclusion, which once delivered is the law.

Back to top

"When the People fear government there is Tyranny;
When government fears the People there is Freedom & Liberty!"

'
Live FREE or DIE!
'

IP Logged