No More Left Wingers On Any Courts!

[WinePusher]

In McDonald v. Chicago, we saw the entire liberal wing of the court vote in favor to strip a man of his constitutional rights to a fire arm. This is called legislating from the bench and this immoral practice is almost always implemented by liberals and progressive judges. The fact is, Judges and Justices are put their to impartially interpret the already existing law. Justice Stevens and his 3 cohorts did not, but rather dissented based on their own ideology, not what the law specifically says. Here's a soundbite from Sotomayor.



1) Do liberals lack a respect and reverence for the constitution?
2) Why do liberals generally follow the idea that the constitution is a "living document"?
3) This liberal ideology seems to run counter to a Jurist's duty to impartially and objectively interpret the law, should Liberals that belong to this judicial activism ideology be prohibited from becoming Judges?

[JoshB]

Well Glen Beck, I gotta say, once again you have truly shown your tunnel vision on liberals!

No. Liberals do not inherently lack respect and reverence for the constitution. These liberals that do (some you have spoke of included) are left-wing radicalists. But are they no different then the right-wing radicalists? Plenty IF NOT MORE Republicans have defied the Constitution in horrendous ways in the past few decades. Your stereotyping liberals to all be radicalist liberals. Im sorry, but your wrong. Im proof of that : )

If you see "living document" as meaning it still fully applies to todays society as it did many many many years ago, then I think I get what your saying. Your saying its hypocritical for the left-wing radicalists to say that the constitution is a living document if they continually defy it. I agree. But the same could go for radicalists right wingers that say they're serving and protecting the constitution when they are actually corrupting it...

Yes. I do agree that radical left wingism (as well as radical right wingism) is a counter to a Jurist's duty to unbiasly interpret the law. But as much as I HATE all politically-self-righteous radicalists, we cannot ban anyone affiliated with that party from coming into that office. It would be unconstitutional and against process.
The President could reccommend anyone for a Supreme Court spot if they have a substantial judicial backround. What determines if they get in or not is the trials they face (like the ones Kagan just has). That test of ideology makes the judges of the trials evaluate what they've heard from the judge to determine whether or not they're fit to be a Supreme Court Judge.
At this point, bias and political radicalism should be sensed. And if the trial judges still see it fit to accept her as a SC Judge, then she is an SC judge until booted out.
Thats how the process works. We cannot ban anyone from the pursuit of office at any point unless prior crimes make the banning necessary. But it is sad that ANY radicalists get in, and in this administrations case, left wing radicalists.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) Do liberals lack a respect and reverence for the constitution?

Perhaps no more than conservatives seek to tie us all to its antiquated ideology.

2) Why do liberals generally follow the idea that the constitution is a "living document"?

Cause we're "living" people. Times and circumstances change.

3) This liberal ideology seems to run counter to a Jurist's duty to impartially and objectively interpret the law, should Liberals that belong to this judicial activism ideology be prohibited from becoming Judges?

Kinda related - Jurors are allowed to nullify a law they deem unjust by declaring the defendant not guilty, regardless of fact, and this decision can not be questioned (though retrials may occur).

In my opinion we shouldn't bind ourselves to an ancient document, but learn it's lessons and apply them were appropriate, discarding them when they fail.

[chris_brown207]

In McDonald v. Chicago, we saw the entire liberal wing of the court vote in favor to strip a man of his constitutional rights to a fire arm. This is called legislating from the bench and this immoral practice is almost always implemented by liberals and progressive judges. The fact is, Judges and Justices are put their to impartially interpret the already existing law. Justice Stevens and his 3 cohorts did not, but rather dissented based on their own ideology, not what the law specifically says. Here's a soundbite from Sotomayor.



1) Do liberals lack a respect and reverence for the constitution?
2) Why do liberals generally follow the idea that the constitution is a "living document"?
3) This liberal ideology seems to run counter to a Jurist's duty to impartially and objectively interpret the law, should Liberals that belong to this judicial activism ideology be prohibited from becoming Judges?

The law is not a clear cut thing, despite how clear cut these issues might be in your own opinion.

For example: You take the second amendment's quote "right to bear arms" to mean the right to own a gun (although it never outright states that). Someone else may take this to mean the right to defend yourself with a weapon (up to an including a gun if it is available), but not necessarily the right to own a gun.

Another example: The first amendment states "government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

Some people takes this to mean government just cannot "establish" a religion.

Others take this to mean the government shall not make laws that respect any one religion over any other.

Others may take this to mean government shall not make laws with any religious content.

So, you may consider what the judges are doing as "legislating from the bench" simply because they are interpreting the law to say something that you don't necessarily agree with.

[WinePusher]

If you see "living document" as meaning it still fully applies to todays society as it did many many many years ago, then I think I get what your saying. Your saying its hypocritical for the left-wing radicalists to say that the constitution is a living document if they continually defy it. I agree. But the same could go for radicalists right wingers that say they're serving and protecting the constitution when they are actually corrupting it...

What republicans of the originalist philosophy do is interpret and read the constitution as a changless, timeless document in a literal sense. What Judicial Activists tend to do is interpret the document as a "changing" document to mean whatever the current society wants it to be. What the constitution is meant to do is preserve our freedoms and refute and fight back aganist beings that wish to strip us of our liberties, The Beatles "Revolution" song sums it up quite well. And we know that the progressives want change, they want to progress past these so called "out dated" practices of a free market, and gun rights, and state rights, and ultimately bring us into a global economy tied in with enterprises such as the EU. And the only thing stopping this "progress" is the constitution, so they try to discredit the validity of the document and its writers.

The President could reccommend anyone for a Supreme Court spot if they have a substantial judicial backround. What determines if they get in or not is the trials they face (like the ones Kagan just has). That test of ideology makes the judges of the trials evaluate what they've heard from the judge to determine whether or not they're fit to be a Supreme Court Judge.

I'm sorry, but Kagan has no Judicial background. She has a background in Academia, the White House and the Justice Department, but she has never decided any case and or written a single opinion. IMO, this nomination dumbs down the court. Being an administrative dean doesn't qualify you to sit on the nations highest court, nor does being a Solicitor General for only 1 year.

At this point, bias and political radicalism should be sensed. And if the trial judges still see it fit to accept her as a SC Judge, then she is an SC judge until booted out.
Thats how the process works. We cannot ban anyone from the pursuit of office at any point unless prior crimes make the banning necessary. But it is sad that ANY radicalists get in, and in this administrations case, left wing radicalists.

You seem to be a reasonable person with moderate political views. I've nothing aganist moderates, but notice that the liberal Justices have solely kept to their ideology. Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens, Sotomayor have all ruled in cases that seem to conform to their political views. Conservative Justices nominated by Conservative Presidents have normally betrayed us, with examples of David Souter, Kennedy, O' Conner, and Earl Warren. So I don't buy the notion that there are "conservative radicals" on the courts. And with Kagan, wouldn't you agree that a SC nominee should have at least some experience as a Judge?

[Goat]

If you see "living document" as meaning it still fully applies to todays society as it did many many many years ago, then I think I get what your saying. Your saying its hypocritical for the left-wing radicalists to say that the constitution is a living document if they continually defy it. I agree. But the same could go for radicalists right wingers that say they're serving and protecting the constitution when they are actually corrupting it...

What republicans of the originalist philosophy do is interpret and read the constitution as a changless, timeless document in a literal sense. What Judicial Activists tend to do is interpret the document as a "changing" document to mean whatever the current society wants it to be. What the constitution is meant to do is preserve our freedoms and refute and fight back aganist beings that wish to strip us of our liberties, The Beatles "Revolution" song sums it up quite well. And we know that the progressives want change, they want to progress past these so called "out dated" practices of a free market, and gun rights, and state rights, and ultimately bring us into a global economy tied in with enterprises such as the EU. And the only thing stopping this "progress" is the constitution, so they try to discredit the validity of the document and its writers.

This reads similar to a post-modern essay generator,

However, since it appears you don't believe that the constitution is a document that can change with the times, let us use the definition of 'arms' from when the constitution was formed. The definition of 'arms' for 'bearing arms' was a sword, and a flintlock rifle. So let's use that as the definition pf what 'bearing arms' is. What?? No?? Then you are changing the original intent of the founders!

[East of Eden]

It is shocking that 4 justices voted against the 2A. Ginsberg in particular seems to care not at all what the Constitution says.

A living constitution is a dead one, replaced by a 9 person dictatorship. It's the only way liberals can force their unpopular ideas on us.

Were I in the Senate, I'd be voting against Kagan.

[East of Eden]

If you see "living document" as meaning it still fully applies to todays society as it did many many many years ago, then I think I get what your saying. Your saying its hypocritical for the left-wing radicalists to say that the constitution is a living document if they continually defy it. I agree. But the same could go for radicalists right wingers that say they're serving and protecting the constitution when they are actually corrupting it...

What republicans of the originalist philosophy do is interpret and read the constitution as a changless, timeless document in a literal sense. What Judicial Activists tend to do is interpret the document as a "changing" document to mean whatever the current society wants it to be. What the constitution is meant to do is preserve our freedoms and refute and fight back aganist beings that wish to strip us of our liberties, The Beatles "Revolution" song sums it up quite well. And we know that the progressives want change, they want to progress past these so called "out dated" practices of a free market, and gun rights, and state rights, and ultimately bring us into a global economy tied in with enterprises such as the EU. And the only thing stopping this "progress" is the constitution, so they try to discredit the validity of the document and its writers.

This reads similar to a post-modern essay generator,

However, since it appears you don't believe that the constitution is a document that can change with the times, let us use the definition of 'arms' from when the constitution was formed. The definition of 'arms' for 'bearing arms' was a sword, and a flintlock rifle. So let's use that as the definition pf what 'bearing arms' is. What?? No?? Then you are changing the original intent of the founders!

That would be like saying the 1A only applies to ancient methods of communicating. Nobody is proposing that.

If the left treated the 2A like they do the 1A, we'd all have nuclear weapons by now.

[JoshB]

What republicans of the originalist philosophy do is interpret and read the constitution as a changless, timeless document in a literal sense. What Judicial Activists tend to do is interpret the document as a "changing" document to mean whatever the current society wants it to be. What the constitution is meant to do is preserve our freedoms and refute and fight back aganist beings that wish to strip us of our liberties, The Beatles "Revolution" song sums it up quite well. And we know that the progressives want change, they want to progress past these so called "out dated" practices of a free market, and gun rights, and state rights, and ultimately bring us into a global economy tied in with enterprises such as the EU. And the only thing stopping this "progress" is the constitution, so they try to discredit the validity of the document and its writers.

Look at Goat's comment.
And also, the "progressives" which you speak of fall into the category of radicalists. And both Rep. and Dem. radicalists have betrayed the constitution in almost equal quantity, just on different issues.

I'm sorry, but Kagan has no Judicial background. She has a background in Academia, the White House and the Justice Department, but she has never decided any case and or written a single opinion. IMO, this nomination dumbs down the court. Being an administrative dean doesn't qualify you to sit on the nations highest court, nor does being a Solicitor General for only 1 year

Well then we agree on Kagan being a bad decision. And seeing that I was wrong on requirements of an SC judge, I submit to correction.

You seem to be a reasonable person with moderate political views.

Thanks?

I've nothing aganist moderates, but notice that the liberal Justices have solely kept to their ideology. Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens, Sotomayor have all ruled in cases that seem to conform to their political views. Conservative Justices nominated by Conservative Presidents have normally betrayed us, with examples of David Souter, Kennedy, O' Conner, and Earl Warren. So I don't buy the notion that there are "conservative radicals" on the courts. And with Kagan, wouldn't you agree that a SC nominee should have at least some experience as a Judge?

I do agree SC nominees should have a backround as a judge. I thought they had to. Sadly I was wrong.

And if by "liberal" justices you mean "left wing nut justices only put in because they'll vote the way other left wing nuts want them to", yes, they have kept to they're ideological pattern of betraying the constitution in certain ways.

No, there are no conservative radicals on the SC. But a left winged President has put in Left Winged Justices, just as a Right Wing Prez. would reccommend a right-wing Justice. This pattern is simply a product of political radicalism that has stemmed from bias political education.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 7:

...
A living constitution is a dead one, replaced by a 9 person dictatorship. It's the only way liberals can force their unpopular ideas on us.

Like when those nine justices placed Bush the Curious in office? I respect you, and even some of your opinions more, but here you seem to be constricted by a conservative bent.

Were I in the Senate, I'd be voting against Kagan.

Yet you are seemingly unable to find enough folks to vote you in to make such a decision.

Course nobody wants me doing any of it either.