Some simple facts about our current and future Supreme Court

[nat4900]

Christians thought slavery was a sin back then just like they do today that sodomy is a sin.

Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian??? Did he have slaves? Did he bang some of his slaves?
(although he may have a Bible next to him while he was banging)

 

[the_human_being]

Puke liberals are the kings of double standards. When they control congress its a mandate from the people, when the Republicans control congress the people are to be ignored.

Take it up with the dead Founders who CLEARLY stated that it is the President who nominates....
(Of course you morons will revert back to what you can't comprehend in the O/P by saying...."but its the senate that confirms....blah, blah, blah")

I stand by the great statesman Joe Biden's own words on this subject and verified by that Great Senator Chuck Shummer from New York and the words of our leader and messiah, Barry Obama.

 

[Ringel05]

Puke liberals are the kings of double standards. When they control congress its a mandate from the people, when the Republicans control congress the people are to be ignored.

Take it up with the dead Founders who CLEARLY stated that it is the President who nominates....
(Of course you morons will revert back to what you can't comprehend in the O/P by saying...."but its the senate that confirms....blah, blah, blah")

That's a great claim, no linkie thingie to support it? Uummmmmm..........

 

[nat4900]

Okay, let's take one, Obama was elected twice because people wanted to continue his policies....... You know this for a fact? No other reasons involved?

Well, you may be right....Obama got re-elected because people DID NOT WANT his policies to continue...
.Feel better?

 

[the_human_being]

How many times have you damn people overturned the will of the majority on gay issues? OH SNAP!

 

[Auld Phart]

Didn't he claim that it was his policies that were being voted on in 2014, when he lost the Senate?

and his policies when he lost the House?

 

[paperview]

Fact 1: There is NO doubt that for the last 2 decades, the SCOTUS has been 'right leaning'...

I stopped reading after this, as this is an OBVIOUS 'Opinion' piece. If the author had used the phrase 'little doubt' maybe....

In 1992:

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ by Reagan
Sandra Day O’Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Harry Blackmun - Appointed by Nixon
Byron White - Appointed by Kennedy

Over two decades ago, 8 out 9 SCJ's were nominated by Republicans.

In 2002:

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ by Reagan
Sandra Day O’Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Appointed by Clinton
Steven Bryer - Appointed by Clinton

6 out of 8, nominated by Republicans.

in 2016:

Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
John Roberts - Appointed by GW Bush
Samuel Alito -Appointed by GW Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Appointed by Clinton
Steven Bryer - Appointed by Clinton
Sonia Sotomayo -Appointed by Obama
Elena Kagan - Appointed by Obama

Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan <-- now dead.

It's the first time in decades we've had anything close to being a evenly picked by opposing parties.

 

[peach174]

Christians thought slavery was a sin back then just like they do today that sodomy is a sin.

Was Thomas Jefferson a Christian??? Did he have slaves? Did he bang some of his slaves?
(although he may have a Bible next to him while he was banging)

Do you know our history enough to know that they put in provisions for the future generations to correct slavery and that they promoted and passed laws that forbid future States not to allow slavery ?

 

[Votto]

Fact 1: There is NO doubt that for the last 2 decades, the SCOTUS has been right leaning with dozens of decisions rendered 5-4 in favor of conservative causes. Reagan's and Bush's 2 term presidencies ensured such leanings.

Fact 2: Regardless of how we would all like for Justices in the SC to be 100% impartial, each individual who has served as Justice carries a certain amount of political bias and not even the Founders could have avoided such partialities and such is not necessarily a bad thing…We are ALL judged by our peers and we all know of our own frailties, biases and prejudices. (Note that Tocqueville in his Democracy in America commented that America has a tacit wish for a nobility class and shows this in its justice system by having judges wear robes and be referred to as “your honor”)

Fact 3: The Founders, in their wisdom, chose to state (Article 2) that an elected president….NOT Congress (i.e. Senate) nor the electorate……nominates a Justice when a position is vacant, while the senate confirms (or not).

Fact 4: Obama was elected TWICE, showing that the majority of voters wanted his policies to proceed.

Fact 5: Based on Fact 4, Obama’s future (and past) nominees will reflect the leanings of his policies since elections DO have consequences…..

Lastly, as has been often cited before, Obama was elected for FOUR full years, not 3 years, and the fact that the SC may soon have a 5-4 “bent” for more liberal causes is just a “swing of the pendulum” after 20 plus years of right leaning decisions.

Let me give you a little history lesson. SCOTUS has not always had the only recognized power to determine what was Constitutional and what was not. In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, on the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement. As Jefferson stated, it was never meant to be set up like this.

 

[BluesLegend]

Puke liberals are the kings of double standards. When they control congress its a mandate from the people, when the Republicans control congress the people are to be ignored.

Take it up with the dead Founders who CLEARLY stated that it is the President who nominates....
(Of course you morons will revert back to what you can't comprehend in the O/P by saying...."but its the senate that confirms....blah, blah, blah")

That clown is your president not mine.

 

[nat4900]

That's a great claim, no linkie thingie to support it? Uummmmmm..........

This is NOT the forum to educate imbeciles....Look up Article 2 regarding what the President must do when a vacancy occurs in the SC......Note that the Founders did NOT state that nomination and confirmation of Justices is up to the electorate (referendums).......

 

[Votto]

Now that we have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention within SCOTUS, one more liberal judge and we can all kiss goodbye the second amendment.

I never thought I would live to see the day, but here it is.

 

[Ringel05]

Okay, let's take one, Obama was elected twice because people wanted to continue his policies....... You know this for a fact? No other reasons involved?

Well, you may be right....Obama got re-elected because people DID NOT WANT his policies to continue...
.Feel better?

Can't think without that DNC hardwired feed can ya?

 

[Votto]

That's a great claim, no linkie thingie to support it? Uummmmmm..........

This is NOT the forum to educate imbeciles....Look up Article 2 regarding what the President must do when a vacancy occurs in the SC......Note that the Founders did NOT state that nomination and confirmation of Justices is up to the electorate (referendums).......

When Dims continually violate the Constitution I think your objections over whether Congress is acting Constitutionally falls on deaf ears. If you hadn't noticed, the GOP is bypassing those who purport to be concerned about the Constitution, like Ted Cruz, in favor of Trump who would rather shove his fist down your throat than discuss the Constitution.

We now live in a post Constitutional society where power reigns supreme. It's just a matter of winning political power and appointing stooges to SCOTUS.

 

[Ringel05]

That's a great claim, no linkie thingie to support it? Uummmmmm..........

This is NOT the forum to educate imbeciles....Look up Article 2 regarding what the President must do when a vacancy occurs in the SC......Note that the Founders did NOT state that nomination and confirmation of Justices is up to the electorate (referendums).......

Uummmm, guess you don't know how messageboards work, do ya...... You make the claim, you provide the link (proof) to back it up.......

 

[paperview]

Puke liberals are the kings of double standards. When they control congress its a mandate from the people, when the Republicans control congress the people are to be ignored.

Take it up with the dead Founders who CLEARLY stated that it is the President who nominates....
(Of course you morons will revert back to what you can't comprehend in the O/P by saying...."but its the senate that confirms....blah, blah, blah")

That's a great claim, no linkie thingie to support it? Uummmmmm..........

Are you asking for a link about the duty of the President to nominate?

 

[paperview]

Fact 1: There is NO doubt that for the last 2 decades, the SCOTUS has been right leaning with dozens of decisions rendered 5-4 in favor of conservative causes. Reagan's and Bush's 2 term presidencies ensured such leanings.

Fact 2: Regardless of how we would all like for Justices in the SC to be 100% impartial, each individual who has served as Justice carries a certain amount of political bias and not even the Founders could have avoided such partialities and such is not necessarily a bad thing…We are ALL judged by our peers and we all know of our own frailties, biases and prejudices. (Note that Tocqueville in his Democracy in America commented that America has a tacit wish for a nobility class and shows this in its justice system by having judges wear robes and be referred to as “your honor”)

Fact 3: The Founders, in their wisdom, chose to state (Article 2) that an elected president….NOT Congress (i.e. Senate) nor the electorate……nominates a Justice when a position is vacant, while the senate confirms (or not).

Fact 4: Obama was elected TWICE, showing that the majority of voters wanted his policies to proceed.

Fact 5: Based on Fact 4, Obama’s future (and past) nominees will reflect the leanings of his policies since elections DO have consequences…..

Lastly, as has been often cited before, Obama was elected for FOUR full years, not 3 years, and the fact that the SC may soon have a 5-4 “bent” for more liberal causes is just a “swing of the pendulum” after 20 plus years of right leaning decisions.

Let me give you a little history lesson. SCOTUS has not always had the only recognized power to determine what was Constitutional and what was not. In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court can declare an act of Congress void when it conflicts with the Constitution, according to the Legal Information Institute. The decision mades the Court the final arbiter of the constitutionality of congressional legislation.

Thomas Jefferson was furious with the Marbury decision. In a letter to Abigail Adams he wrote, "The Constitution meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

He later wrote, "To consider judges as the ulitimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.....and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

This is what Lincoln said of the Dred Scott decision that denied blacks equal rights under the law.

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne that could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decision to political purposes."

Just think, the nation was at the mercy of 5 men to overturn the inequality of blacks imposed by SCOTUS. Luckily it happened but only due to political expediency. If racists had continued to rule the day, SCOTUS would have been prone to the political leanings of their power base and not have overturned it.

Now turn the page to Woodrow Wilson, who held the opposite view of SCOTUS.

"The character of the process of constitutional adaption depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provision of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity"


So, on the one hand, you have men like Jefferson and Lincoln who hold the view that the courts now have too much power. An oligarchy of 5 justices is all that is needed who are prone to the same vices of seeking money and political power as everyone else is prone to having. Then you have President Wilson and the rest of his Prog followers that are now in power who essentially advocate is appointing "wise" and "good" men to the post so that they can have a 5 man never ending perpetual constitutional convention.

It seems to me the only way to fix this, if at all, is the Article V movement. As Jefferson stated, it was never meant to be set up like this.

So, you go by the name of whodey on the chess forums, eh?

Or would that be Dos Equis?

 

[the_human_being]

Fact 1: There is NO doubt that for the last 2 decades, the SCOTUS has been 'right leaning'...

I stopped reading after this, as this is an OBVIOUS 'Opinion' piece. If the author had used the phrase 'little doubt' maybe....

In 1992:

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ by Reagan
Sandra Day O’Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Harry Blackmun - Appointed by Nixon
Byron White - Appointed by Kennedy

Over two decades ago, 8 out 9 SCJ's were nominated by Republicans.

In 2002:

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by Ford
William Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon - Appointed to CJ by Reagan
Sandra Day O’Connor - Appointed by Reagan
Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
David Souter.- Appointed by GHW Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Appointed by Clinton
Steven Bryer - Appointed by Clinton

6 out of 8, nominated by Republicans.

in 2016:

Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
Clarence Thomas - Appointed by GHW Bush
John Roberts - Appointed by GW Bush
Samuel Alito -Appointed by GW Bush
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Appointed by Clinton
Steven Bryer - Appointed by Clinton
Sonia Sotomayo -Appointed by Obama
Elena Kagan - Appointed by Obama

Antonin Scalia - Appointed by Reagan <-- now dead.

It's the first time in decades we've had anything close to being a evenly picked by opposing parties.

Well, actually that's exactly the way we want it to continue.

 

[Ringel05]

Puke liberals are the kings of double standards. When they control congress its a mandate from the people, when the Republicans control congress the people are to be ignored.

Take it up with the dead Founders who CLEARLY stated that it is the President who nominates....
(Of course you morons will revert back to what you can't comprehend in the O/P by saying...."but its the senate that confirms....blah, blah, blah")

That's a great claim, no linkie thingie to support it? Uummmmmm..........

Are you asking for a link about the duty of the President to nominate?

I know specifically what he's referring to but others might not. My only point is he/she/it made the claim, he/she/it has the onus to back it up. I know that's a rare occurrence with the fanatical hacks on both sides but hey, they can at least try.

 

[the_human_being]

That's a great claim, no linkie thingie to support it? Uummmmmm..........

This is NOT the forum to educate imbeciles....Look up Article 2 regarding what the President must do when a vacancy occurs in the SC......Note that the Founders did NOT state that nomination and confirmation of Justices is up to the electorate (referendums).......

When Dims continually violate the Constitution I think your objections over whether Congress is acting Constitutionally falls on deaf ears. If you hadn't noticed, the GOP is bypassing those who purport to be concerned about the Constitution, like Ted Cruz, in favor of Trump who would rather shove his fist down your throat than discuss the Constitution.

We now live in a post Constitutional society where power reigns supreme. It's just a matter of winning political power and appointing stooges to SCOTUS.

Who opened the door? Obama has totally disregarded the duties of the Congress.