Bobby Jindal proposes doing away with Supreme Court

[Aldebaran]

I guess you are not big on people speaking their mind on about their take on issues.

Judges are supposed to be impartial to the issues. Ginsberg clearly is not.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

I suggest that you read about the Life at Conception Act. It has died in Congress more than once, but it gets resurrected each time. Right now it has over 100 sponsors in Congress. One day it may pass and get signed by a Republican president. I am not predicting that it will become law, but simply saying that this could eventually happen. Abortion may one day become illegal. Do not forget what happened to slavery!

With our SCOTUS, they will just say its Unconstitutional and strike it down. We need a Constitutional Convention to force the courts to comply with the will of the people.

 

[JustOneWay]

Judges are supposed to be impartial to the issues. Ginsberg clearly is not.

Nothing she said was partial.

Uh huh. And a United States Supreme Court justice who swore to uphold our constitution apparently doesn't think the constitution she swore to uphold defends human rights?

She never said that. Why did you misinterpret her words?

 

[JustOneWay]

With our SCOTUS, they will just say its Unconstitutional and strike it down. We need a Constitutional Convention to force the courts to comply with the will of the people.

You want to fundamentally change our form of government? Pretty radical....

 

[DaisyDay]

Speaking against the highest law of the land that you're supposed to be protecting isn't confidence-inspiring. But just look at her record, and you'll see what her real thoughts are. Not exactly in line with the Constitution. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg.htm#Free_Trade

What are you talking about? What specifically did she say that you consider to be against the highest law of the land?

 

[Maren]

Judges are supposed to be impartial to the issues. Ginsberg clearly is not.

Looking at that website, combined with your definition of "impartial", none of the Supreme Court jurors are "impartial" -- they all have made statements on various key issues. Instead, I'd suggest your definition of "impartial" is at fault.

I thought this is an interesting editorial on what it means to be impartial, and have to agree with the statement, "Judges learn about the law from sources other than the parties, and they do so both before litigation begins and outside the courtroom. A judge who had no opinions about the law before a case began would not be impartial; she would be incompetent." It is also worth noting that the Senate typically asks nominated Supreme Court Justices some specific questions about a judges opinion on various laws and issues, and expects the nominees to answer those questions.

 

[trunks2k]

With our SCOTUS, they will just say its Unconstitutional and strike it down. We need a Constitutional Convention to force the courts to comply with the will of the people.

That's a horrible idea.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

That's a horrible idea.

Why? Please expand.

 

[JustOneWay]

Why? Please expand.

Duh. We are a democratic republic (or oligarchy to some)

You want to change it to full blown democracy - mob rule.

We have determined the mob is stupid, and minority groups all all kinds would lose.

 

[AirPo]

Why? Please expand.

Because it goes against the very foundation of our nation.

 

[Arcangl86]

Why? Please expand.

Because once a Constitutional Convention is called, conversation cannot be limited to any specific topics. We have no idea what we will come up with. I present to you as an example, the United States Constitution.

 

[trunks2k]

Why? Please expand.

Because the judiciary should be focused on the law, not the will of the people. Making them have to care about what the population thinks means they are not focusing on the law, and it puts minority groups at a huge disadvantage. If the people do not like the way the judiciary interprets the law, they have recourse: change the law.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

You want to fundamentally change our form of government? Pretty radical....

No, just amend our Constitution. And yes, there is always a cultural change associated with an amendment. The society is always ready for the change. But there is nothing radical about it.

 

[Paulos23]

No, just amend our Constitution. And yes, there is always a cultural change associated with an amendment. The society is always ready for the change. But there is nothing radical about it.

Then work on an amendment to it. A constitutional convention can result in the current constitution being replaced by who knows what.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Then work on an amendment to it. A constitutional convention can result in the current constitution being replaced by who knows what.

I think you don't how to amend the constitution.

 

[JustOneWay]

No, just amend our Constitution. And yes, there is always a cultural change associated with an amendment. The society is always ready for the change. But there is nothing radical about it.

Amend the Constitution to allow majority rule....

Fundamentally changing the entire US system of governing....

 

[Boondock_Saint]

Amend the Constitution to allow majority rule....

Fundamentally changing the entire US system of governing....

It seems you just fear having a minority opinion. Now, there is no way the support for a Convention would exist for the purpose of defining marriage. But if the support was there, there would be nothing wrong with it.

But I do see you point. All past amendments have granted more freedom. Defining marriage would not do that. It would be a change. And besides, I wouldn't pass anytime this decade. My point is, is that this is the only option left for people who support the idea of only traditional marriage. The simple majority of Americans who support traditional marriage, is not enough to do anything about it.

 

[Paulos23]

I think you don't how to amend the constitution.

I do, it is right in the Constitution, Article Five. Though I think what you want is a Amendments Convention, not a Constitutional Convention.

 

[JustOneWay]

It seems you just fear having a minority opinion.

You don't seem to get that at any given time the minority is going to be you, and you will not get what you want because you are in the minority.

I have no fear about being in the minority as much as I fear for any minority because they lose any power they once had.

Nobody is stopping anybody else from getting a traditional marriage. What you are really saying is that you want to prevent others from getting the kind of marriage they want, like same sex.

 

[AirPo]

The simple majority of Americans who support traditional marriage

This is a myth, the majority of Americans suppost SSM.