- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do You Believe Gorsuch Really Expressed 'Dismay'?
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:40 am to CorporateTiger
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:40 am to CorporateTiger
i think the real issue was the commerce clause itself
i mean i may be wrong in my interpretation, but i don't think that i am (due to early caselaw)
but yeah i mean Marbury v Madison is a fricked up case philosophically. basically it was a tainting of the federal government like Eve taking a bite of that apple. it's the original sin of our early government
i mean i may be wrong in my interpretation, but i don't think that i am (due to early caselaw)
but yeah i mean Marbury v Madison is a fricked up case philosophically. basically it was a tainting of the federal government like Eve taking a bite of that apple. it's the original sin of our early government
1
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
I'm not sure I would go that far, but yes the concept of "interstate commerce" has just changed so much that, in retrospect, the constitution should have been worded differently.
I was just addressing the continual threat of court packing as a way to influence jurisprudence.
I was just addressing the continual threat of court packing as a way to influence jurisprudence.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:44 am to CorporateTiger
but the Constitution doesn't actually give judicial review to the courts. that was invented by Marbury v. Madison
that case established the "we can make it up as we go" jurisprudence that our Constitution was specifically written to avoid
that case established the "we can make it up as we go" jurisprudence that our Constitution was specifically written to avoid
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:46 am to Knight of Old
When this was first reported there was a full quote from Gorsuch. It made a lot more sense in full context and was not bashing POTUS. It was very diplomatic and smart. I went back to the same article to find the full Gorsuch quote and it was gone.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:47 am to cajunangelle
I saw the original article right after it was posted. It didn't have a full quote.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:50 am to SlowFlowPro
Wickard is the spell that released thousands of evils that the Constitution had contained until that point.
Posted on 2/9/17 at 9:53 am to SlowFlowPro
I mean I understand the risk of Marbury which as you said gave the judiciary the keys to expansion.
On the other Congress has proven that when given the room to expand the government they will do so at an alarming rate. Where else should those keys have sat?
On the other Congress has proven that when given the room to expand the government they will do so at an alarming rate. Where else should those keys have sat?
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that was invented by Marbury v. Madison
Magical,
Isn't it?
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:08 am to CorporateTiger
When ones head is buried so deep in sand, they miss some logic
Posted on 2/9/17 at 10:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
even if he was misquoted, i'm sure he hates the tweets/PR/conflict
I doubt anyone that is heavily involved in governing, through the legislature or judiciary likes these tweets. I would imagine even the most constructionist judges that loathe judicial activism do not like this.
Page 4 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News