The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: garand4life on February 04, 2010, 02:35:59 PM
-
This could get really bad.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/white-house-prepares-possibility-supreme-court-vacancies/story?id=9740077
-
This could get really bad.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Supreme_Court/white-house-prepares-possibility-supreme-court-vacancies/story?id=9740077
He could replace them with Mao and Joe Stalin and the court would not be that different as with these 2. Besides, "Scarecrow" Ginsburg is soooo fond of quoting foreign law when deciding US cases. What a despicable POS excuse of an American she is.
-
He could replace them with Mao and Joe Stalin and the court would not be that different as with these 2. Besides, "Scarecrow" Ginsburg is soooo fond of quoting foreign law when deciding US cases. What a despicable POS excuse of an American she is.
Two points Path.
The first involves simple Christian decency. The woman has colon cancer. Lets not expect her to be a fashion plate.
The second is about reading your history. The idea of looking at foriegn law in guiding decisions is very common and older than the US. The term is comity. Esentially it is the belief that civilized (however defined) nations should have similar legal principles, if not necessarily similar laws. Its something that goes back to Marshall's Court. The SC uses statute law, the Constitution, Common Law and international law in its decisions. This has nothing to do with Ginsberg per se, just saying that if you think using IL in Court decisions is new, you are mistaken. (cf. Dred Scott).
FQ13
-
FQ, I am going to disagree with you on principle. We have a Constitution that was written by me with intmate knowledge and experience with other world governments and laws. They carefully wrote our Constitution to protect us from those situations. We should not be deciding U.S. law based on the decissions of others ... Unless you are fond of "jumping off the bridge because they did.
-
Replacing Ginsberg and Stevens, with two Lib leaning justices,.....Hello???!!! What would change????
That's why Bush, got Robert's and Alito, they're young (in SCOTUS terms),.... Scalia and Thomas just have to hang in there.
This was predicted prior to the Anointed One's election..."Oh the Lib Justices are just hanging on until the next Democrat POTUS."
-
FQ, I am going to disagree with you on principle. We have a Constitution that was written by me with intmate knowledge and experience with other world governments and laws. They carefully wrote our Constitution to protect us from those situations. We should not be deciding U.S. law based on the decissions of others ... Unless you are fond of "jumping off the bridge because they did.
You can disagree as much as you want. We're not debating "should be dones" here, we are dealing with "has been done and will continue to be dones". In Dred Scott for example, both several concurring as well as disenting Justices reffered to the Slave Grace case of (I think) 1748. The deal was a Brit took his slave from Jamica where slavery was legal to the UK where it wasn't. Was she free? This ate up a lot of the various Justices opinions in Dredd Cott's analogous case in the US. No Constititution, no staute law, but a 100 year old foreign decision was viewd as binding. This was in the mid 1800s. International law has always, and will always, play a role when the court steps into unchartered waters (like internet law or determining exactly what "cruel and unusual" actually means on planet earth). I'm neither endorsing nor condemning, just reporting the facts.
FQ13
-
Cass Sunstein who wants to do away with the 1st and 2nd, and Hillary Clinton who wants the same.
At a certain point the SCOTUS will be the domestic enemy.
-
Cass Sunstein who wants to do away with the 1st and 2nd, and Hillary Clinton who wants the same.
At a certain point the SCOTUS will be the domestic enemy.
It won't be anytime soon, Presidential appointments to SCOTUS are legacy appointments, regardless of George Bush's shortcomings, appointing Alito and Chief Justice Roberts were thought out.
They are not left wing 9th Circuit Court activists, that legislate from the bench. They are more or less Constitutional advocates.
With that in mind, and the three branches of gov't, the priority is getting BHO the hell out, and rendering Congress impotent until America votes some sanity back into Washington.
If that doesn't happen, the "domestic" enemy won't be SCOTUS.