I'm Thrilled

[Bryce]

Still, life terms do occasionally contain the element of surprise. There have been many cases in which a justice or two didn't vote the way they were "expected" to.

My view may be jaundiced, but to me it always seems it's the justices expected to be conservative that give the most surprises. Seldom do I remember a "liberal" justice not towing the ideological line.

Again, I could be wrong, but, for the life of me I can't remember it happening!

[Calvert DeForest]

I knew there was something....just couldn't remember what. Enter Google:

http://occasionalplanet.org/2016/02/17/ ... r-reality/

Another case in point is Byron “Whizzer” White. Appointed in 1962 by President Kennedy, who had met him at Oxford, White was thought to be a moderately liberal justice. A decade after Kennedy died, White cast one of only two dissenting votes against Roe v. Wade.

[Bryce]

Hardly Craig. The amendment process is arduous and time consuming. Two thirds of the states must sign on. Someone in a black robe should not be able to amend with the stroke of a pen.

I don't disagree. Give me an example of 5 black robes (not one as you stated) that you feel "amended" the constitution with a ruling.

The recent ruling from the 9th circuit is a very a good example of three black robes doing just that.

They pretty much have granted a constitutional right for foreign nationals to immigrate to the United States, and gives them a right to due process. In addition, the ruling removes the Presidents plenary power granted to him by congress. They didn't even have the decency to site the statute that the EO was based upon. Because. They couldn't. They made a ruling based solely on their ideology.

Nowhere in the COTUS are constitutional rights or due process granted to non US citizens.

[Deleted User 8570]

Hardly Craig. The amendment process is arduous and time consuming. Two thirds of the states must sign on. Someone in a black robe should not be able to amend with the stroke of a pen.

I don't disagree. Give me an example of 5 black robes (not one as you stated) that you feel "amended" the constitution with a ruling.

The recent ruling from the 9th circuit is a very a good example of three black robes doing just that.

They pretty much have granted a constitutional right for foreign nationals to immigrate to the United States, and gives them a right to due process. In addition, the ruling removes the Presidents plenary power granted to him by congress. They didn't even have the decency to site the statute that the EO was based upon. Because. They couldn't. They made a ruling based solely on their ideology.

Nowhere in the COTUS are constitutional rights or due process granted to non US citizens.

Nowhere in the COTUS do judges review this stuff... you wouldn't complain if it went your way though would you?

[Bryce]

you wouldn't complain if it went your way though would you?

If those three political hacks would have applied the rule of law instead of "social justice" as they see it, the outcome would have went the other way.

But, you are correct when you say, they, or the district judge that made the original ruling, had no business weighing in on the matter in the first place.

[Deleted User 8570]

you wouldn't complain if it went your way though would you?

If those three political hacks would have applied the rule of law instead of "social justice" as they see it, the outcome would have went the other way.

But, you are correct when you say, they, or the district judge that made the original ruling, had no business weighing in on the matter in the first place.

Right...

But let's say judges with no business overturning anything overturn Roe V. Wade... now abortion isn't in the constitution in the first place but they still ruled on the subject in 1973... as someone who doesn't like judges who are activist making decisions from the bench how would you feel if they made a decision you very much would support from the bench?

[audiophile]

Getting the right decision through the wrong method is no good either.

[Bryce]

In my opinion, the Roe v Wade decision was flawed. The Supreme court should not and CAN not make abortion illegal. Neither should they make it a "right".

This again is something that should be left to the individual states to decide.

[audiophile]

Extremely flawed.

It ranks up there with the Dred-Scott decision.

[Deleted User 8570]

I would agree with you both... but a major goal of the Evangelical movement in supporting Trump is getting the court to overturn Roe V. Wade... I'm thinking a law would be a better way...

[audiophile]

Overturn it, or just put back they way it was before the 1973 decision?

[Deleted User 8570]

Overturn it, or just put back they way it was before the 1973 decision?

Overturn it and rule abortion completely illegal on a national scale... if you're so gung-ho on it that you will stand outside in freezing weather or the rain with pictures of mutilated fetuses then letting each state decide is probably not what you have in mind...

[audiophile]

I don't think that will happen. It will just slowly fade away on a state level.