Supreme Court's liberals prepare for a spring of dissent

[TalkRadio_]

Washington (CNN)The four liberal justices of the Supreme Court are steeling themselves for a momentous spring as the reality settles in that the left flank of the bench could remain at least one critical vote shy of a majority in ideologically driven cases for decades.

Facing an emboldened conservative majority and a docket marked by some of the most consequential cases in recent years, the liberals, led by the ailing 86-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg, will work to stall the conservative legal revolution launched with the election of President Donald Trump who is fulfilling his pledge to transform the courts.

It won't be easy.

On top of that, if Trump succeeds in November, there is a strong possibility that he would have another seat to fill particularly given Ginsburg's age and that of Justice Stephen Breyer, who is 81. Trump would likely choose a young nominee along the lines of his first two Supreme Court picks Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.

Source

 

[HisArpy]

I would hope that if the opportunity arises, Trump will select nominees who are moved more by their unwavering adherence to the law and Constitution than to a view based on political passion or ideology.

 

[Adre]

I would hope that if the opportunity arises, Trump will select nominees who are moved more by their unwavering adherence to the law and Constitution than to a view based on political passion or ideology.

I’d say you’re in a distinct minority then.

 

[HisArpy]

I’d say you’re in a distinct minority then.

Hope springs eternal.

What I hope for may not come to pass, but at least I'm not foaming at the mouth for him to select some partisan fool who will only warp my Constitutional Rights into something they weren't ever meant to be. Or even make them disappear completely.

 

[Conager]

Hope springs eternal.

What I hope for may not come to pass, but at least I'm not foaming at the mouth for him to select some partisan fool who will only warp my Constitutional Rights into something they weren't ever meant to be. Or even make them disappear completely.

I'm guilty of that at times. I like Heller even though it's a wrong decision. In reality we need to unwind the whole incorporation doctrine. It should apply to the 14th Amendment and only the 14th Amendment. Prohibitions against the federal government doing things should not apply to the States. If people in the varioue States want to limit their natural rights, let 'em.

Most state constitutions do a decent job of protecting natural rights and if people want to violate those rights at their state level, let them. So we're supposed to have federalism and we don't seem to have that. In fact when we talk about the federal government everything about the federal government these days is not federalist.

 

[HisArpy]

I'm guilty of that at times. I like Heller even though it's a wrong decision. In reality we need to unwind the whole incorporation doctrine. It should apply to the 14th Amendment and only the 14th Amendment. Prohibitions against the federal government doing things should not apply to the States. If people in the varioue States want to limit their natural rights, let 'em.

Most state constitutions do a decent job of protecting natural rights and if people want to violate those rights at their state level, let them. So we're supposed to have federalism and we don't seem to have that. In fact when we talk about the federal government everything about the federal government these days is not federalist.

Yet this doesn't incorporate the concept of Federalism which is a major component of admission into the union under the Constitution. Further, the 14th clarifies the concept that ALL people have inalienable Rights that cannot be abridged by the individual States and amended/ratified the entire Constitution to say so.

In overview, the US Constitution was created to allow the States maximum latitude while not permitting them to do whatever they want. Just like what happens in our bicameral style Federal Government, this intentionally creates tension between the States and the Constitution. That tension is meant as a check against both sides.

To keep both sides in balance, I would prefer to see a couple of new justices who understand that concept and who have followed and promoted that understanding during their entire career on the lower court bench. "Living document" and "Originalist" are partisan concepts not suited for protecting that balance. And when the Court leans to one side or the other because of partisanship, the balance is upset and the people suffer for it.

 

[Conager]

There aren't both sides. There's originalist and those that want to bastardize the Constitution. If you don't want the black letter law of the Constitution amend it.

The Fourteenth Amendment was not written to be construed the way you're construing it now. You can't simply construe amendments you have to pass a new one if you want that amendment to mean something different at a different time.

I despise the entire concept of case law. It's b*******. Black letter law on every single case every time. If some court gets one particular case one way and another court gets it another way both reading and interpreting that black letter law well then you're going to have to go to an appeals court and try to sort that out but you should always return the black letter law and if black-letter law is not good enough then you go and legislate the black letter law until the black letter law accomplishs what you want to happen. I don't give a s*** what some judge thinks a law *should* read I give a s*** what it actually reads.

I can't see any state violating anyone's basic human rights. We're far past that.. if Chicago wants to pass gun legislation that's perfectly legal constitutionally. It has been historically it's only modern interpretations that say that the Second Amendment which just simply says the federal government can't take our guns away, means that idiots cannot choose to live in gun free cities. They can.

I mean as it is if a bunch of liberals really wanted to do it they could of course have a homeowners association that simply bans all guns, put it in the deed restrictions and no one in that neighborhood can possess a gun and nobody can enter that private property with a gun.

Except for criminals who would of course ignore the deed restrictions.

See my thinking here is when and if we finally get around to the eventual hot portion of our current cold Civil War those with anti-gun mentalities will find that they don't seem to have the hardware laying around in their state.

 

[icanhelp1]

I’d say you’re in a distinct minority then.

No he's not!!! Most constitutional conservatives want a jurist that will uphold the constitution and not be swayed by partisan politics or the flavor of the majority..

 

[Conager]

That said, I'm sure I'm wrong on a lot of the nuance of the law.

My education and experience lean in the direction of contract law and is woefully deficient in areas of criminal and constitutional law. For a guy that has spent just under two days in jail I also have the typical jailhouse lawye's snarl at the injustice dispensed by assholes on the bench.

 

[Rightguide]

No he's not!!! Most constitutional conservatives want a jurist that will uphold the constitution and not be swayed by partisan politics or the flavor of the majority..

Adre forgets you elect people to effect political change, you don't appoint an oligarchy to do it from the bench, at least not in a constitutional republic.

 

[Rightguide]

I would hope that if the opportunity arises, Trump will select nominees who are moved more by their unwavering adherence to the law and Constitution than to a view based on political passion or ideology.

Amen!

 

[icanhelp1]

There aren't both sides. There's originalist and those that want to bastardize the Constitution. If you don't want the black letter law of the Constitution amend it.

The Fourteenth Amendment was not written to be construed the way you're construing it now. You can't simply construe amendments you have to pass a new one if you want that amendment to mean something different at a different time.

I despise the entire concept of case law. It's b*******. Black letter law on every single case every time. If some court gets one particular case one way and another court gets it another way both reading and interpreting that black letter law well then you're going to have to go to an appeals court and try to sort that out but you should always return the black letter law and if black-letter law is not good enough then you go and legislate the black letter law until the black letter law accomplishs what you want to happen. I don't give a s*** what some judge thinks a law *should* read I give a s*** what it actually reads.

I can't see any state violating anyone's basic human rights. We're far past that.. if Chicago wants to pass gun legislation that's perfectly legal constitutionally. It has been historically it's only modern interpretations that say that the Second Amendment which just simply says the federal government can't take our guns away, means that idiots cannot choose to live in gun free cities. They can.

I mean as it is if a bunch of liberals really wanted to do it they could of course have a homeowners association that simply bans all guns, put it in the deed restrictions and no one in that neighborhood can possess a gun and nobody can enter that private property with a gun.

Except for criminals who would of course ignore the deed restrictions.

See my thinking here is when and if we finally get around to the eventual hot portion of our current cold Civil War those with anti-gun mentalities will find that they don't seem to have the hardware laying around in their state.

I've read both You and HARPY. With that being said how do you deal with sanctuary cities and states when fed funding is in the middle of the argument?

 

[Conager]

I've read both You and HARPY. With that being said how do you deal with sanctuary cities and states when fed funding is in the middle of the argument?

The only reason there is federal funding is because the federal government has given itself permission to print money and they can deficit spend. A balanced budget amendment fixes that. There shouldn't be federal funds for anything.

You need to do something on the state level you fund it at the state level. If you can't afford it then you rely upon charity. You can ask your neighboring states or the population at large or have a GoFundMe site but what you can't do is encumber future generations with the power of the almighty US government.

This is the whole reason that we went to a fiat currency. You'd have to actually be honest about what you're doing and devalue your currency if you wanted to do what they're doing and it was actually backed up.

Inflation is not an economic term, it is a term of art invented by politicians to explain the fact that they were incrementally devaluing our currency.

 

[icanhelp1]

The only reason there is federal funding is because the federal government has given itself permission to print money and they can deficit spend. A balanced budget amendment fixes that. There shouldn't be federal funds for anything.

You need to do something on the state level you fund it at the state level. If you can't afford it then you rely upon charity. You can ask your neighboring states or the population at large or have a GoFundMe site but what you can't do is encumber future generations with the power of the almighty US government.

This is the whole reason that we went to a fiat currency. You'd have to actually be honest about what you're doing and devalue your currency if you wanted to do what they're doing and it was actually backed up.

Inflation is not an economic term, it is a term of art invented by politicians to explain the fact that they were incrementally devaluing our currency.

My point is, is that immigration policy is a federal responsibility being hijacked by the states. I agree, states should be allowed to exercise autonomy for the most part and pay their way. We'll never win the deficit spending problem till we get term limits and force these career politicians to get a real job, but we all know they won't cut their own balls off. Politics being local, everybody love their own, hence, we live with the Pelosi's and Kennedy's of the world. Year after year it's more of the same!!

 

[heathergives]

I’d say you’re in a distinct minority then.

Oh, so you hope that Trump would nominate judges who would not adhere to the law and the Constitution?

Somehow that makes sense for you, Comrade.

 

[HisArpy]

There aren't both sides. There's originalist and those that want to bastardize the Constitution. If you don't want the black letter law of the Constitution amend it.

The Fourteenth Amendment was not written to be construed the way you're construing it now. You can't simply construe amendments you have to pass a new one if you want that amendment to mean something different at a different time.

I despise the entire concept of case law. It's b*******. Black letter law on every single case every time. If some court gets one particular case one way and another court gets it another way both reading and interpreting that black letter law well then you're going to have to go to an appeals court and try to sort that out but you should always return the black letter law and if black-letter law is not good enough then you go and legislate the black letter law until the black letter law accomplishs what you want to happen. I don't give a s*** what some judge thinks a law *should* read I give a s*** what it actually reads.

I can't see any state violating anyone's basic human rights. We're far past that.. if Chicago wants to pass gun legislation that's perfectly legal constitutionally. It has been historically it's only modern interpretations that say that the Second Amendment which just simply says the federal government can't take our guns away, means that idiots cannot choose to live in gun free cities. They can.

I mean as it is if a bunch of liberals really wanted to do it they could of course have a homeowners association that simply bans all guns, put it in the deed restrictions and no one in that neighborhood can possess a gun and nobody can enter that private property with a gun.

Except for criminals who would of course ignore the deed restrictions.

See my thinking here is when and if we finally get around to the eventual hot portion of our current cold Civil War those with anti-gun mentalities will find that they don't seem to have the hardware laying around in their state.

Black letter law isn't sufficient. Behind every law is debate. Inside that debate are the things that the legislators had to deal with in order to create the law. The "intent" behind the law if you will.

Courts have to research what the legislature meant before they can determine what the "black letter" of the law actually means. The function of higher courts is to make that determination and issue an "opinion" which is binding on all the lower courts in their jurisdiction. The highest court, SCOTUS, has jurisdiction over all lower courts in the US and what they say is binding on us all because they have determined what the "black letter" words in the law actually mean. These are definitions, if you will, of what the law says. Without that guidance, the actual printed words have no meaning.

Yes, the 14th Amendment does actually mean what I said it means.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

ALL PERSONS... That means everyone.
NO STATE... That means none of them.
SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE... means no State can make a law that violates the core tenants of the US Constitution or Bill of Rights.

That's "black letter" right there. It's clear. And you cannot say that the 14th Amendment doesn't amend the entire Constitution because by it's very existence it DOES. Further it covers ALL persons and ALL privileges or immunities and prohibits ALL States from infringing upon those privileges or immunities. That's "federalism" right there. Which is a concept where the Federal Government is supreme and the "lesser" states must adhere to the laws passed by the Federal Government.