"BALANCED COURT" ?

[leVieux]

>
"BALANCED" Supreme Court ?


NO!


Don't let them sell you this seditious idea. Our media & our left have used this to confer "reasonableness" as a Court goal.


Dear Hearts, our Supreme Court is the FINAL arbiter of what our government is allowed to do under our U S Constitution !


The ideal of the Court is to limit our government to what our Constitution permits it to do.


When the issue is constitutionality, there is NO room for the Justices' personal "political positions", despite that notion having been sold to us.


Just consider for a moment the phrase "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"; then consider the patchwork of contrary laws which has been allowed by the Court(s).


Under our system, we have clear methods of changing our Constitution and "Court Nullification" is NOT one of them !


There is little factual room for "liberal" Justices (or, for Conservative Justices) to alter our Constitutional protections to fit their whims, as has been done !


A "TYRANNY IN BLACK ROBES" is the worst kind of tyranny, as there is no further appeal from it!


Indeed, this is a main reason that our Founders gave us a strong Second Amendment.


Please THINK !


leVieux
.

 

[TX oddball]

With the current commie regime, the only three qualifications apply for a Supreme Court justice:

1. Woman
2. Black
3. Commie

Nothing else matters. She could be a clerk in a ghetto court system with no legal experience.
Nothing else matters.

 

[mad88minute]

I agree with you but feel helpless in this situation. On the federal level it's 100% out of my hands.


Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk

 

[rotor]

Think what? Is this a changeable issue? This woman will need to decide affirmative actions in college admissions and she has been picked because she is a black woman.

 

[Younggun]

Who the hell here is falling for anything like that? It’s you’re trying to preach to a preacher.


Go hang out with some liberals and convince them. We already figured it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

Who the hell here is falling for anything like that? It’s you’re trying to preach to a preacher.


Go hang out with some liberals and convince them. We already figured it out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You'd be surprised !

 

[mad88minute]

The supreme court debate over the covid mandates illustrated the importance of having constitutional judges on the court.

All of the constitutional judges were discussing the implications the decision would have on individual rights, and the precedent it would set.

Justice Sotomayor just spit out a bunch or false numbers and propaganda.

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

You'd be surprised !

I would. As I’ve not seen anyone ever post on this forum that we need a “balanced court”. And especially not any current active members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

I would. As I’ve not seen anyone ever post on this forum that we need a “balanced court”. And especially not any current active members.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, it hasn't come up here that I noticed. But, in discussing it with others I've noted that the meme of a "balanced court" has been repeated so much that many citizens have just accepted it, without realizing what it actually meant.

Just my attempt to bring it to folk's attention here.

Sorry if you're so advanced that a simple explanatory post offends you.

leVieux

 

[Younggun]

No offense taken. I was just trying to figure out who it was that you were trying to convince, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[msharley]

If? We had a SCOTUS that was FIT for Duty?

The Pedophile and all of the EPSTEIN ISLAND patrons would be in Prison.

And Mr. Trump would still be in the White House. (after all, he did get 80 Million Votes...)

Can I take out an insurance policy on that Miss Maxwell girl?

 

[cycleguy2300]

The supreme court debate over the covid mandates illustrated the importance of having constitutional judges on the court.

All of the constitutional judges were discussing the implications the decision would have on individual rights, and the precedent it would set.

Justice Sotomayor just spit out a bunch or false numbers and propaganda.

Sent from my moto e6 using Tapatalk

I couldn't believe the ignorance of some of Sotomayor's statements. They were imbecilic.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[DoubleDuty]

Because no one tells the Dems to take a hike.

 

[Texasjack]

It really goes beyond Conservative and Commie. One of the things that really disturbed me about Ruth Bader Ginsburg was that she voiced the opinion that if you couldn't find a precedent in American law, then it would be fine to look at other countries and use them as a basis for the court's decision. So maybe raping boys or killing your wife because her family didn't pay a dowery is Ok because it's acceptable in some other culture. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it really is a frightening way for the SCOTUS to operate.

It's extremely important that the SCOTUS operates under the belief that only Americans decide what's good for Americans, and that the Constitution is meant to be strictly interpreted as it was constructed. It is the framework for our freedom, as it limits the government. Hollywood has pushed hard to say that the glorious thing about the Constitution is that it can change with the times - and what they mean by that is that the courts can re-interpret what it means. That's completely wrong. The only changes should be determined by ratification from the states. In effect, 9 people should not change the document, only a vote of the citizens of the USA should have that power.

 

[Army 1911]

She's just an affirmative action nominee.

 

[Tnhawk]

The Founding Fathers didn't design the Supreme Court to be "balanced". The intent was that it be free of the politics of the other branches of government. The issues before the Court should be weighed against the Constitution not according to the shifting politics of moment. Judges should be chosen based on ability to apply the law as written, not their personal political beliefs.

 

[DoubleDuty]

The Founding Fathers didn't design the Supreme Court to be "balanced". The intent was that it be free of the politics of the other branches of government. The issues before the Court should be weighed against the Constitution not according to the shifting politics of moment. Judges should be chosen based on ability to apply the law as written, not their personal political beliefs.

That's why Democrat choices for the court are dangerous.

 

[leVieux]

It really goes beyond Conservative and Commie. One of the things that really disturbed me about Ruth Bader Ginsburg was that she voiced the opinion that if you couldn't find a precedent in American law, then it would be fine to look at other countries and use them as a basis for the court's decision. So maybe raping boys or killing your wife because her family didn't pay a dowery is Ok because it's acceptable in some other culture. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it really is a frightening way for the SCOTUS to operate.

It's extremely important that the SCOTUS operates under the belief that only Americans decide what's good for Americans, and that the Constitution is meant to be strictly interpreted as it was constructed. It is the framework for our freedom, as it limits the government. Hollywood has pushed hard to say that the glorious thing about the Constitution is that it can change with the times - and what they mean by that is that the courts can re-interpret what it means. That's completely wrong. The only changes should be determined by ratification from the states. In effect, 9 people should not change the document, only a vote of the citizens of the USA should have that power.

The Founding Fathers didn't design the Supreme Court to be "balanced". The intent was that it be free of the politics of the other branches of government. The issues before the Court should be weighed against the Constitution not according to the shifting politics of moment. Judges should be chosen based on ability to apply the law as written, not their personal political beliefs.

"EXACKERLY" !

 

[Vaquero]

Democrats say the same things.

Gorsuch.
Cavanaugh.
Barrett.

 

[DoubleDuty]

Democrats have proven they are unfit in government. Republicans need to stand up to them consistently