- Oct 10, 2020
- 14,725
- 6,335
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
Don't think they won't. They are sick and tired of the Supreme Court getting in the way of their agenda.
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Rep. Jayapal: Dems Talking About Expanding Supreme Court
- Thread starter Valletta
- Start date
LeafByNiggle
Well-Known Member
- Jul 20, 2021
- 1,034
- 716
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
I am sympathetic to the Democratic agenda, but I heard David Brooks on TV yesterday comment on this issue and I have to agree with him. He said that the Democrats are going about this all wrong. The Supreme Court decisions on immigration that prompted this exchange were simply interpreting the law as currently written. And according to the letter of the law, they decided rightly. It is not the job of the judiciary to decide what is best for the country. It is their job to decide what the law says. It might be a bad law, but that is not for them to decide. Their sole mandate according to the constitution is to decide what is in accord with the constitution and what is in accord with the laws passed by the congress.
Back when we had prohibition enshrined as the 18th amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Count could not rule that it was a stupid amendment (even though it was). They had to rule according to what that stupid amendment said. This is not a flaw in our system of government. It is a feature. If the courts were to decide which laws or parts of the constitution they didn't like, the whole system would break down as the roles of the courts and the legislature overlapped. Instead of packing the court with anti-prohibition judges, the country did the sensible thing. They recognized the problem with the 18th amendment and passed the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th.
That's what the Democrats should do if they believe that the current wording of the immigration statutes are unfair. They should get to work in Congress and push for a change in the law. There will still be a dispute between those that think it is unfair and those that think it is fair, but at least the dispute will be taking place in the proper venue - the Congress of the United States.
As David Brooks said, people on both sides are not interested in incremental change and working within the system whose 250th birthday we will be celebrating soon. Both sides are into "breaking stuff" (as Nimona would say).
Back when we had prohibition enshrined as the 18th amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Count could not rule that it was a stupid amendment (even though it was). They had to rule according to what that stupid amendment said. This is not a flaw in our system of government. It is a feature. If the courts were to decide which laws or parts of the constitution they didn't like, the whole system would break down as the roles of the courts and the legislature overlapped. Instead of packing the court with anti-prohibition judges, the country did the sensible thing. They recognized the problem with the 18th amendment and passed the 21st amendment which repealed the 18th.
That's what the Democrats should do if they believe that the current wording of the immigration statutes are unfair. They should get to work in Congress and push for a change in the law. There will still be a dispute between those that think it is unfair and those that think it is fair, but at least the dispute will be taking place in the proper venue - the Congress of the United States.
As David Brooks said, people on both sides are not interested in incremental change and working within the system whose 250th birthday we will be celebrating soon. Both sides are into "breaking stuff" (as Nimona would say).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Aug 3, 2012
- 31,860
- 31,421
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Yeah, that's the way "originalists" like to describe themselves. In reality, they pick and choose when to be literal just like everybody else.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
