Am I doing this right?
![Wink :blink](./images/smilies/wink.gif)
In other news the sun rose in the east and although it’s cloudy today on sunny days the sky is blue.Matt wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 10:31 amhttps://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney- ... 45?mod=mhp
Am I doing this right?![]()
You expected a UNANIMOUS vote?
Talk of expanding the court is just a media brain fart.MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: ↑Thu Oct 22, 2020 8:59 pmYes, it's a show of good faith. If she's going to pass anyways, why not? It won't matter when we expand the court.![]()
How about this:
No, the system we have works fine. The democrat appointees are typically the ideologues, hard stop. Republican appointees are more likely not to be politically tied.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:28 amHow about this:
All 189 appellate judges are made Supreme Court Justices on a rotating basis. So if a case is accepted to the court a random lottery drawing of 9 will hear the case. That eliminates any need to stack the court of fight wildly over ideology everytime one of the justices croaks.
Bullshit. Anyone who claims to be an originalist and can interpret the constitution to give answers that the founding fathers could never have fathomed because the subject matter didn’t exist is an ideological hack. Hard stop. Clarance Thomas and Antonin Scalia being the biggest examples.Matt wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:17 amNo, the system we have works fine. The democrat appointees are typically the ideologues, hard stop. Republican appointees are more likely not to be politically tied.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 1:28 amHow about this:
All 189 appellate judges are made Supreme Court Justices on a rotating basis. So if a case is accepted to the court a random lottery drawing of 9 will hear the case. That eliminates any need to stack the court of fight wildly over ideology everytime one of the justices croaks.
Interesting.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:44 amBullshit. Anyone who claims to be an originalist and can interpret the constitution to give answers that the founding fathers could never have fathomed because the subject matter didn’t exist is an ideological hack. Hard stop. Clarance Thomas and Antonin Scalia being the biggest examples.
The hearing of cases and striking down of laws isn’t even in the constitution. It’s a precedent established in 1803 when they decided to do it and nobody bothered to stop them.Mike Oxlong wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 1:51 pmInteresting.Rate This wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 6:44 amBullshit. Anyone who claims to be an originalist and can interpret the constitution to give answers that the founding fathers could never have fathomed because the subject matter didn’t exist is an ideological hack. Hard stop. Clarance Thomas and Antonin Scalia being the biggest examples.
What exactly is the role of the Supreme Court in these modern times. Is it to interpret the Constitution as an Originalist?
Is it to interpret modern times and make judgements that don't necessarily reflect what the Constitution says?
I agree, the Constitution is 230 years old. A lot in the world has changed.
But is it a slippery slope to not follow original meaning as the exclusive guide to interpretation in cases?
It would seem to me that by not being an Originalist, bias would be more likely.
I'm not saying I know the answer to that question. We both agree we are basically down to one Originalist on the bench, that being Thomas. And that's not likely to change, even with Amy Coney joining the fray.
But I go back to my first question. What is the role of the Supreme Court? Are they truly relevant? Maybe what I should say, are they making themselves irrelevant? My personally, they need to be passing on at least a third of the cases they hear. If it's not interpreting the Constitution, Originalist or otherwise, why hear it?