Ex... a point you would think the left would have learned by now...

If one side pushed to allow their haphazzard idea of the moment to stand as interpretation... at some point in side... the OTHER side is going to be in the very same position to do it as well...

I bet you'd LOVE it to be reinterpreted for Abortions to be unconstitutional the next time Republicans hold all the majorities?

What is it they say?


Be careful what you wish for... you might just get it?

If something can liberally "Interpreted" one way...


It can also be conservatively be "Interpreted" the exact opposite way too.

Don't think you are going to like the living document perspective so much when that inevitably happens. But you wanted it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

If something can liberally "Interpreted" one way...

It can also be conservatively be "Interpreted" the exact opposite way too.

Don't think you are going to like the living document perspective so much when that inevitably happens. But you wanted it.

---

Hello again, smoothy:

What you're saying could happen, that I'm not going to like, is EXACTLY what DID happen, that I DON'T like...

The idea that corporations were NOT entitled to individual rights was liberally interpreted to be the law for the last 100 years... THIS Supreme Court interpreted it exactly the opposite. You're right... I DON'T like this interpretation, but it IS an interpretation. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

excon

Extraordinary interpretion beyond intent is not a legitimate Judiciary role. Show me in plain language where judicial review is even constitutional .

This is mostly a post civil war evolution. SCOTUS did not intervene until it blew it in the Dred Scott decision... 50 years after the Marbury decision.

But since then SCOTUS has grabbed way too much power. Since then they have ruled against 160 items of law.
What has evolved is a system that gives SCOTUS unequal powers .Powers the founders never envisioned :
You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a 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.... Their power [is] 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
(Thomas Jefferson)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

What you're saying could happen, that I'm not gonna like, is EXACTLY what DID happen, that I DON'T like...

The idea that corporations were NOT entitled to individual rights was liberally interpreted to be the law for the last 100 years... THIS Supreme Court interpreted it exactly the opposite. You're right... I DON'T like this interpretation, but it IS an interpretation. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

excon

---

And I already show where the intent was established by the founders.

Hello again, tom:

If there's NO final arbiter of the Constitutionality of law, chaos would ensue. Everybody would have THEIR interpretation of what it said, thereby causing the INTENT of the founders to be lost.

I agree with you about the extraordinary power of our Supreme Court, but I cannot imagine what governance would be like WITHOUT it.

Nonetheless, we're not going back. Like it or not, what the Supreme Court says the law is, it IS. Do you want to go back? Is that a wish, or do you have a plan?

excon

50 years before the 1st reversal... and when they finally did one it was one of the biggest factors that led to the Civil War . Somehow the country survived without .

What is my plan ? I agree that we are stuck with judicial review because there has not been an executive that was willing to challenge it.
I would however propose an amendment to eliminate the lifetime appointment and instead have the justice go through periodic reconfirmations .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I would however propose an amendment to eliminate the lifetime appointment and instead have the justice go through periodic reconfirmations .

---

Hello again, tom:

I don't know.. The idea behind a lifetime appointment, is that the justices would be free to seek JUSTICE, instead of kissing up to whomever the political winds were favoring that day.

But, I sure would like a way to get rid of this particular branch of wingers.

excon

Like the justices have not been prone to politics. (see Jefferson's comments... 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.... )

I'm against ALL censorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, smoothy:

What you're saying could happen, that I'm not gonna like, is EXACTLY what DID happen, that I DON'T like...

The idea that corporations were NOT entitled to individual rights was liberally interpreted to be the law for the last 100 years... THIS Supreme Court interpreted it exactly the opposite. You're right... I DON'T like this interpretation, but it IS an interpretation. I'm glad you finally admitted it.

excon

---

I think they interpreted it right... Moveon.org has had free riegn on their speech for far too long... its only fair big business gets it as well.

You can't argue moveone.org is an individual... Unless you bring in George Soros... who literally funds it... in his attempt to have more say and more of a vote, than people born and raised here do.

You know the story about Pandoras box?