ACLU, Defending Religious Freedoms?

[Speedwell]

Justices rule with personal prejudice, why do you think Liberals and Conservatives are so concerned about Supreme Court appointments.

Justices are chosen by presidents directly related to their historical rulings on issues.

You Think Obama Or Hillary would have chosen "Neil Gorsuch" for appointment

To say Supreme Court Justices are politically and socially neutral is a "Real Big Smile"!

It does not always work out. In 1953 President Eisenhower appointed Governor Earl Warren of California as Chief Justice. Warren was notorious for his hard right-wing stance as governor, but went on to preside over the unanimous Brown v. Board decision so hated by conservatives. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Truth7t7]

You are admitting that you are advocating judicial activism?

I support legal precedent, however case law is up for interpretation, I desire a conservative interpretation, not a liberal.

Do you believe the US constitution changes with time?

I dont!

Liberal Justices believe and rule upon the constitution as being a living document, that allows them to take their liberal interpretation away from its original 16th century context and apply it to modern day scenarios.

Conservatives look at the historical interpretation, as interpreted in 1788 when it was written.

(Liberal Loose Constructionism)

Wikipedia: Living Constitution

In United States constitutional interpretation, the living Constitution (or loose constructionism) is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases.

 

[Truth7t7]

It does not always work out. In 1953 President Eisenhower appointed Governor Earl Warren of California as Chief Justice. Warren was notorious for his hard right-wing stance as governor, but went on to preside over the unanimous Brown v. Board decision so hated by conservatives. Be careful what you wish for.

Dont forget Justice Kennedy the Regan appointment, that was the tie breaker for same sex marriage.

 

[Hank77]

Because religious conservatives sometimes suggest "non-denominational" prayer in the schools as a compromise which ought to be acceptable to all Christians at least. You need to understand why it is not--without being insulted.

What is non-denominational prayer? Is the Lord's Prayer, non-denominational, or is it just the prayer that Jesus Himself told us to pray?

 

[Speedwell]

What is non-denominational prayer? Is the Lord's Prayer, non-denominational, or is it just the prayer that Jesus Himself told us to pray?

Which version?
But I was thinking more of the rambling, extemporanious praying style favored by Evangelicals, which some Christians find distinctly unedifying.

 

[super animator]

*

Once again you are not answering the question that I am giving you and answer a question that I did not ask.

 

[Belk]

Justices rule with personal prejudice, why do you think Liberals and Conservatives are so concerned about Supreme Court appointments.

Justices are chosen by presidents directly related to their historical rulings on issues.

You Think Obama Or Hillary would have chosen "Neil Gorsuch" for appointment

To say Supreme Court Justices are politically and socially neutral is a "Real Big Smile"!

No one claimed they were socially neutral. However simply being conservative is not enough to over turn Roe V Wade or same sex marriage. There has to be compelling legal reasoning why the previous ruling should be changed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is it your belief that judges make decisions based only on their ideology? Or do they actually rely on reasoning, precedent, and the law? If you believe the former it is a good argument. If you believe the later it is poor.

He hopes judges make decisions based only on their ideology. The law is irrelevant to him.

 

[Belk]

He hopes judges make decisions based only on their ideology. The law is irrelevant to him.

That is certainly the impression I get from his posts.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Dont forget Justice Kennedy the Regan appointment, that was the tie breaker for same sex marriage.

A justice who actually made a decision based on the law... why does that upset you so?

 

[TLK Valentine]

It does not always work out. In 1953 President Eisenhower appointed Governor Earl Warren of California as Chief Justice. Warren was notorious for his hard right-wing stance as governor, but went on to preside over the unanimous Brown v. Board decision so hated by conservatives. Be careful what you wish for.

Given Donald's track record, Conservatives had best hope he's better at filling vacancies in SCOTUS than vacancies in... well, just about everywhere else.

The man values loyalty over competence, and as such, surrounds himself with ideological toadies who either:

1: get fired for not being enough of a toadie,
2: get indicted for being too much of a toadie,
3: quit for refusing to be a toadie.

Seems like Donald's going to have to pack the court with ideologues so deeply in step with his own way of thinking, that he might as well clone himself, and so deeply out of step with the rule of law, that they haven't cracked open a law journal since the Bicentennial.

Anyone think one such justice sounds palatable, let alone a majority?

 

[Truth7t7]

Given Donald's track record, Conservatives had best hope he's better at filling vacancies in SCOTUS than vacancies in... well, just about everywhere else.

The man values loyalty over competence, and as such, surrounds himself with ideological toadies who either:

1: get fired for not being enough of a toadie,
2: get indicted for being too much of a toadie,
3: quit for refusing to be a toadie.

Seems like Donald's going to have to pack the court with ideologues so deeply in step with his own way of thinking, that he might as well clone himself, and so deeply out of step with the rule of law, that they haven't cracked open a law journal since the Bicentennial.

Anyone think one such justice sounds palatable, let alone a majority?

Sounds like sour grapes the the Liberals are out of control and in the back seat now.

Next time you think of Toadie, watch a few videos on your minority speaker Nancy Pelosi.

 

[Speedwell]

Sounds like sour grapes the the Liberals are out of control and in the back seat now.

It's time for the moderates to take over. You know, moderates? Somewhere in that vast unacknowledged country between the elitist left and the Christian right?

 

[Truth7t7]

It's time for the moderates to take over. You know, moderates? Somewhere in that vast unacknowledged country between the elitist left and the Christian right?

No its time the conservatives have majority control, its gonna take 12 years to untabgle the actions of the Obama Hussein regime.

 

[TLK Valentine]

No its time the conservatives have majority control, its gonna take 12 years to untabgle the actions of the Obama Hussein regime.

Remind me again what made him so terrible?

 

[Speedwell]

Remind me again what made him so terrible?

That's not a fair question to ask of a conservative in a moderated forum.

 

[Truth7t7]

That's not a fair question to ask of a conservative in a moderated forum.

Thanks!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Sounds like sour grapes the the Liberals are out of control and in the back seat now.

Next time you think of Toadie, watch a few videos on your minority speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This is exactly the kind of fixation on "control" as opposed to the law that makes groups such as the ACLU necessary.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That's not a fair question to ask of a conservative in a moderated forum.

Thanks!

I'm not sure that was meant as a compliment to you.

 

[Truth7t7]

This is exactly the kind of fixation on "control" as opposed to the law that makes groups such as the ACLU necessary.

I was gonna say the say the same about you.
The conservatives are democratically in control, dont you believe in the democratic process?

Or is it sour grapes, as Hillary in India still complaining about her loss?