- 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
0
Posted on 7/25/20 at 7:55 am to Loserman
quote:
nothing can be done about Roberts
He can take Scalia’s place on the next “hunting trip.”
Posted on 7/25/20 at 8:02 am to AggieHank86
quote:
People like this want to impeach a judge for not being ideological in a position that is SUPPOSED to be non-ideological.
No. We want a justice who will adhere to the Constitution of the United States. Roberts seems to ignore half the time. Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and RGB have apparently never heard of nor read the Constitution.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 8:12 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Y’all are so worried about RGB, but the REAL enemy is Justice John Roberts
quote:
A judge who does not vote lockstep with either “camp” and who actually seems to conduct a non-political, legal analysis of each case?
Yeah, frick that guy.
Therein lies your misconception. There is only one proper method of "interpreting" the Constitution. It is original intent.
Any other method is the political analysis.
When Congress passed the Constitution and amendments, they argued and then voted on them. The word choices that were finally selected that they agreed on had meaning to them.
Then after passing they were sent and voted on by the States.
Large public debates were had on these and then the states ratified the Constitution and Amendments in kind.
Interpreting the constitution as a living document is a farce being perpetrated on us.
If we the people decide we want to give up rights, or, invent new ones, then the Constitution has a means for doing it.
It is the amendment process. The reason the Living Constitution side doesn't want to use the political and constitutional method of amending the Constitution is because they know it is too damn hard.
There they appoint activists as judges because it is much easier.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 8:25 am to Loserman
quote:Therein lies YOUR misconception.
There is only one proper method of "interpreting" the Constitution. It is original intent.
The most important element of a legal system is its ability to provide a uniform framework under which citizens can operate, with a reasonable expectation that a given set of rules will apply ... uniformly and to everyone. This notion is "Jurisprudence 101."
The Rules of Statutory Construction PROVIDE that element. THEY are what prevents EVERY case from devolving into the personal preferences and biases of a given judge ... or the differing notions of "original intent" of each judge.
FIRST, you look at the plain language of the document. MOST constitutional provision and MOST legislation are well-written and lack much (if any) ambiguity. In that instance, an impartial jurist will NEVER look to ANY other rule of statutory interpretation ... whether "original intent" or otherwise.
SECOND, and ONLY in the fact of ambiguity, you look to the other rules of interpretation ... including "original intent."
I agree with you on the "living document" nonsense. I am VERY MUCH a strict constructionist ... and we engage in Strict Construction by FOLLOWING the rules of interpretation.
This post was edited on 7/25/20 at 8:35 am
Posted on 7/25/20 at 8:32 am to tide06
It is amazing that justices only go left, never right
Posted on 7/25/20 at 8:54 am to AggieHank86
quote:
People like this want to impeach a judge for not being ideological in a position that is SUPPOSED to be non-ideological.
This latest decision from Roberts and the other 4 does leave open the door to if they are violating the US constitutions 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion.
This post was edited on 7/25/20 at 8:55 am
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:06 am to ZIGG
quote:
Bush fricked everyone with this pick
Cannot trust a Bush to pick a Supreme Court justice. Remember David Souter. The Bush family are NOT conservatives. They are east coast transplants. I will give the elder Bush credit for being a good soldier, that is for sure
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:09 am to CajunTiger92
quote:
Let’s not forget
Thanks for telling this. I wondered why he picked Alito. Now I know
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:13 am to gthog61
quote:
Leftist fall in love with all types of scum
Gotta say amen here. The Church is going to have to push back at some point. We are also under the constitution and have rights. We are Not governed by a Roman government as in Jesus day
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:22 am to AggieHank86
quote:
A judge who does not vote lockstep with either “camp” and who actually seems to conduct a non-political,
Non political?
Roberts doesn't even try to maintain a consistent ideology within his own rulings.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:28 am to Flats
quote:EXACTLY
Roberts doesn't even try to maintain a consistent ideology within his own rulings.
Far, far more often than not, he just follows the law as he sees it ... regardless of ideology.
That is NOT what I want in a legislator, but EXACTLY what I want in a judge.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:34 am to tide06
quote:well its a dumb theory. it's very simple. he illegally adopted his kids and committed felony fraud in the process.
I have a theory that Roberts was appointed by a swamp rat president because he could be controlled through blackmail by swamp rats.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:36 am to AggieHank86
quote:
EXACTLY
EXACTLY wrong. I’m not talking about political or partisan ideology, I’m talking about how he interprets the law. It varies depending on how he’s already decided to rule.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 9:58 am to ZIGG
Novus ordo seclorum...
Posted on 7/25/20 at 10:09 am to AggieHank86
Roberts is letting a political agenda to balance the court drive his different interpretation for each case.
He shouldn’t be worried about court balance. He should be worried about consistent interpretation of the law.
He shouldn’t be worried about court balance. He should be worried about consistent interpretation of the law.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 10:14 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Far, far more often than not, he just follows the law as he sees it
So feelings? And this explains why the SCOTUS has ruled in favor of the anti-scientific and frankly insane notion that a man born a man has a “right” to be called a woman.
Feelings, whoa, oh, oh, feelings....
Posted on 7/25/20 at 10:14 am to AggieHank86
quote:
People like this want to impeach a judge for not being ideological in a position that is SUPPOSED to be non-ideological.
Ahem. Ruth Bader Ginsberg is non-Ideological?
Posted on 7/25/20 at 10:16 am to tonydtigr
quote:Where have I ever said that?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is non-Ideological?
We are discussing Roberts.
RBG does tend toward result-driven analysis.
Posted on 7/25/20 at 10:17 am to Ssubba
quote:
I have a theory that Roberts is trying to save the court from packing under a Democratic administration.
I have a theory that the Deep State has videos of Roberts and a Sheep.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News