- 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: Why do we need a supreme court?
Posted on 4/28/21 at 3:49 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
Posted on 4/28/21 at 3:49 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:
Please share what your thoughts are regarding the Ninth Amendment and unenumerated rights.
You mean like the right to not be required to buy a product or service by the force of government? Or maybe the right to kill an inconvenient child?
quote:
Are you asserting that there must be explicit language in the Constitution in order for an issue to be constitutional or not?
Did I say that? No, I said that if the Constitution doesn’t delegate powers to the federal government on the subject, no powers are conveyed to the Supreme Court on the subject either, as the SC is part of the federal government.
quote:
Under your scenario, would SCOTUS be barred from reviewing those rights?
No the SC involvement should be nothing more than declaring that the federal government has no delegated power on the subject:
1
Posted on 4/29/21 at 11:40 am to troyt37
quote:
You mean like the right to not be required to buy a product or service by the force of government? Or maybe the right to kill an inconvenient child?
I am going to assume that from the tone of your comment you do not believe in unenumerated rights. Correct me if you do. If you don't, why do you erroneously believe this? I am curious your position regarding the Ninth Amendment and what you think it means.
quote:
I said that if the Constitution doesn’t delegate powers to the federal government on the subject, no powers are conveyed to the Supreme Court on the subject
This is abjectly false. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution grants both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. There is no need for an express granting of specific powers to SCOTUS. What do you think the Article III, Section 2 language means when it states that the Supreme Court has the authority to hear “...all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution”?
quote:
...SC involvement should be nothing more than declaring that the federal government has no delegated power on the subject:
This is nonsense. We have over two centuries of jurisprudential history to demonstrate that this is not true. Your statement indicates that you think it "should" be the way you stated, when in reality it is the opposite.
Your arguments remind me of a saying one of my former law school professor used, "this type of understanding of the Constitution is a mile wide and a inch deep."
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:16 pm to habanos
Okay consider this. Deliberations on cases using rulings from previous SCOTUS decisions, often results in bad laws. A sort of perpetual error embedded in the deliberation process. So bad law begets bad law.
Consider this. Our 'noble'(gag) SCOTUS ruled a baby in the womb is not human until 'the human being' exits the birth canal. So in order to get around 'the law' the abortionist performing a 'late-term' abortion simply pulls the babies body out but leaves the babies head in the birth canal. So according to "the law" at this point the baby is not human. Then the hitman (excuse me abortionist) punctures a hole at the base of the skull, inserts a suction hose through the hole, and sucks the babies brain out. How morbid is that?
Yep, bad law begets bad law.
Consider this. Our 'noble'(gag) SCOTUS ruled a baby in the womb is not human until 'the human being' exits the birth canal. So in order to get around 'the law' the abortionist performing a 'late-term' abortion simply pulls the babies body out but leaves the babies head in the birth canal. So according to "the law" at this point the baby is not human. Then the hitman (excuse me abortionist) punctures a hole at the base of the skull, inserts a suction hose through the hole, and sucks the babies brain out. How morbid is that?
Yep, bad law begets bad law.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:19 pm to Zarkinletch416
What does that have to do with the existence of the Court?
Btw, Roe and its progeny do not create a right to, or protect, late term abortions. Bitch at state legislatures if it’s not banned in a given state.
I’ll bet you consider yourself a proponent of federalism, states rights, and “small government”, yes?
Btw, Roe and its progeny do not create a right to, or protect, late term abortions. Bitch at state legislatures if it’s not banned in a given state.
I’ll bet you consider yourself a proponent of federalism, states rights, and “small government”, yes?
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:21 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
What does that have to do with the existence of the Court?
Simple. IMO if the high court is going to be used to institutionalize genocide, maybe we could do without it.
quote:
Bitch at state legislatures if it’s not banned in a given state.
Excuse me. I don't recall Roe v Wade being decided at the state level? BTW my state banned abortions. Many other states haven't. IMO babies aborted in New York State have just as much a right to life as the ones we saved in my state. A suggestion? Go back and read the Declaration of Independence (second paragraph). Also can you explain to me why my tax dollars are used to subsidize a business engaged in the genocode of human beings? I'll wait for your response.
Now go peddle your ridiculous logic somewhere else heathen.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:39 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:36 pm to Blackie LeBlanc
quote:
I am going to assume that from the tone of your comment you do not believe in unenumerated rights. Correct me if you do.
Consider yourself corrected. I believe in unenumerated rights for citizens of the US. I do not believe in unenumerated or undelegated power for the federal government. Why is this so hard for you?
quote:
This is abjectly false. Article III, section 2 of the Constitution grants both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court. There is no need for an express granting of specific powers to SCOTUS.
Oh, but actually that's exactly what Article III, Section 2 does, doesn't it? You just conveniently left that part out, didn't you?
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Now I'm not too sure, but I don't see a scenario in there where I could say, "hey I want the right to kill my inconvenient child, and I think the federal government and the Constitution should make that provision for me."
I think the Constitution proscribes exactly how it is to be changed, if you have the political power and will to change it.
quote:
This is nonsense. We have over two centuries of jurisprudential history to demonstrate that this is not true. Your statement indicates that you think it "should" be the way you stated, when in reality it is the opposite.
Your arguments remind me of a saying one of my former law school professor used, "this type of understanding of the Constitution is a mile wide and a inch deep."
On this, you are dead on. I never said my opinion is how it works, I'm saying it's how it should work. It doesn't, because we have "two centuries of jurisprudential history" AND TYRANNY that prevents the document from being read and followed as intended.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:37 pm to Zarkinletch416
quote:
Simple. IMO If the high court is going to be used to institutionalize genocide, maybe we could do without it.
You’re just speaking in histrionics at this point. If you aren’t going to actually discuss the Court or the language/meaning of its decisions, why even discuss it?
quote:
BTW my state banned abortions. Many other states haven't. Babies aborted in New York State have just as much a right to life as the ones we saved in my state.
Perhaps the people of the state of NY should do something about that if they are so inclined.
You didn’t address my question. Do you generally consider yourself a supporter of federalism? Small government? Do you generally support the premise that underlies the 9th and 10th Amendments, I.e unenumerated rights and powers reserved for the states? I’d bet my next paycheck that you do.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:41 pm to troyt37
quote:
Now I'm not too sure, but I don't see a scenario in there where I could say, "hey I want the right to kill my inconvenient child, and I think the federal government and the Constitution should make that provision for me."
Now I know for sure that you’ve never read a court opinion, and you certainly haven’t read Roe.
You do understand that the Court requires an actual constitutional case or controversy in order to hear the case right? The case was based on the language and meaning of the 14th amendment—quite literally arising “under this Constitution.”
What other court or venue would be able to adjudicate the meaning and application of the 14th Amendment if not the SCOTUS?
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:43 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I’d bet my next paycheck that you do.
I'm simply pro-life. I'm not a lawyer, I'm simply someone who believes in the value of a human life. I've said before. I'm not a fan of Barack Hussein Obama's policies (or his judicial picks) but I do admire his mother. She could have aborted her baby, but she didn't. But I agree, this debate is going nowhere. You are far too mired in judicial gobbledygook to understand the institutionalization of evil.
Good day heathen.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I’d bet my next paycheck that you do.
I'm simply pro-life. I'm not a lawyer, I'm simply someone who believes in the value of a human life. I've said before. I'm not a fan of Barack Hussein Obama's policies (or his judicial picks) but I do admire his mother. She could have aborted her baby, but she didn't. But I agree, this debate is going nowhere. You are far too mired in judicial gobbledygook to understand the institutionalization of evil.
Good day heathen.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:45 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
I’d bet my next paycheck that you do.
I'm simply pro-life. I have this notion that laws should be enacted to protect the fragile, defenseless, and marginalized. In that we are not defending the rights of the unborn, we are not heeding the advice (and warnings) of our Founding Fathers.
But I agree with you, this discussion is going nowhere.
Goodbye.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 12:50 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 12:48 pm to Zarkinletch416
quote:
I'm simply pro-life.
So am I. Hell, I don’t even consider Roe to be a “good case”—it was lazy judicial work and a punt.
However my personal opinions are not (and should not be) the foundation of constitutional jurisprudence or nationwide policy. Those things have to be determined under the legal framework set forth by the Constitution. It’s the only way we can have nice things.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 1:01 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
So am I
Okay great. So one more question. Are you Christian? Yes or No? And if so what denomination? And in what region of the country?
And here's the bonus question? Are you Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian?
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 1:05 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 1:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You do understand that the Court requires an actual constitutional case or controversy in order to hear the case right? The case was based on the language and meaning of the 14th amendment—quite literally arising “under this Constitution.”
So, they read into the 14th Amendment what they want to read, in order to give themselves a mandate to legislate from the bench. Gotcha. It’s called tyranny. If it’s fine with you, and you like getting into all the precedence and lawyer bullshite, fine. We just see it completely different.
I’ll tell you when I realized that the SC was just another layer of tyranny. Heller. I grew up hearing and believing in the brilliance of Antonin Scalia. But then you read his opinion on Heller, and he so carefully points out that it only applies to having weapons in the home, when the plain language of the 2A states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” I just said screw it. Even the best of the justices on the SC are tyrants. No other way to see it.
Posted on 4/29/21 at 1:46 pm to Zarkinletch416
quote:
Are you Christian? Yes or No? And if so what denomination? And in what region of the country?
Yes, Catholic, Louisiana.
quote:
And here's the bonus question? Are you Democrat, Republican, or Libertarian?
Republican who believes in the virtues of a secular, constitutional, federal republic.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 1:56 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 1:53 pm to troyt37
quote:
So, they read into the 14th Amendment what they want to read, in order to give themselves a mandate to legislate from the bench.
They have to interpret it. That is the entire point. Your argument here makes no sense. You don't want the SCOTUS to rule on or decide anything that isn't specifically within the purview of the Constitution.......but its the SCOTUS' job to determine what is in the Constitution and what it means.
Your preferred interpretation of the Court's job is unworkable, not practical, and would leave the United States with multiple, varying interpretations of the same Constitutional language.
quote:
I’ll tell you when I realized that the SC was just another layer of tyranny. Heller. I grew up hearing and believing in the brilliance of Antonin Scalia. But then you read his opinion on Heller, and he so carefully points out that it only applies to having weapons in the home, when the plain language of the 2A states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” I just said screw it. Even the best of the justices on the SC are tyrants. No other way to see it.
The language in bold is a sure fire way to determine that you are wrong. There is never only one way to see...just about anything. Hence, the need for the Court to determine the standards.
[quote]But then you read his opinion on Heller, and he so carefully points out that it only applies to having weapons in the home, when the plain language of the 2A states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” I just said screw it
Scalia's opinion in Heller is the most expansive view of the Second Amendment in this country's history---and that includes the Federalist Papers and James Madison himself. You can pretend like "shall not be infringed" has no historical context and was meant to allow anything and everything all you want. That isn't the truth and it wasn't the original intent of the language. Go ahead and google Madison's original draft of the 2nd amendment
You are also forgetting the first half sentence, as most people on this site do constantly. It has to be read together. This is coming from someone who supports Heller. "well-regulated" is just as much a part of the amendment as "shall not be infringed"
Posted on 4/29/21 at 2:53 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You are also forgetting the first half sentence, as most people on this site do constantly. It has to be read together. This is coming from someone who supports Heller. "well-regulated" is just as much a part of the amendment as "shall not be infringed"
And you whiz right by “the right of the people” knowing that “well regulated” is not a qualifier to the people.
ETA: We both know that the FF definition of “well regulated” has been documented ad nauseum to mean “in proper working order” and absolutely not “subject to government regulation, right?
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 3:05 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 3:01 pm to troyt37
quote:
And you whiz right by “the right of the people” knowing that “well regulated” is not a qualifier to the people.
Wrong, and what you are arguing doesn't even make sense.
One of the most basic principles of legal interpretation is that there are no meaningless words or phrases. Everything has to be read in relation to each other.
Commas matter. "A well regulated militia {COMMA} being necessary to the security of a free state {COMMA} the Right of the People to keep and bear arms {COMMA} shall not be infringed." The first and last phrase relate to each other.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 4/29/21 at 3:25 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Wrong, and what you are arguing doesn't even make sense.
One of the most basic principles of legal interpretation is that there are no meaningless words or phrases. Everything has to be read in relation to each other.
Commas matter. "A well regulated militia {COMMA} being necessary to the security of a free state {COMMA} the Right of the People to keep and bear arms {COMMA} shall not be infringed." The first and last phrase relate to each other.
See, the only reason it doesn’t make sense to you is because you are eyeball deep in precedence, jurisprudence, and the tyranny that all entails. We really don’t need to document what we’ll regulated means, do we?
Posted on 4/29/21 at 3:33 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
the only reason it doesn’t make sense to you is because you are eyeball deep in precedence, jurisprudence, and the tyranny that all entails.
Best of luck to you cracking this nut. I have given up trying to reason with the unreasonable and ill-informed.
This post was edited on 4/29/21 at 3:34 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News