Bobby Jindal proposes doing away with Supreme Court

[JustOneWay]

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

And people like him would be in the minority, thus losing any power to keep marriage in the terms in which they define.

 

[Boondock_Saint]

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

When you are right, you are right. That is what I was referring to. I argue it can and should be done if there is support for the cause.

 

[Aldebaran]

Nothing she said was partial.


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

You just misinterpreted mine. You seem to have a habit of that.

 

[JustOneWay]

You just misinterpreted mine. You seem to have a habit of that.

Not at all. I corrected you.

If you feel I misinterpreted you, then this can all be cleared up by YOU posting evidence where you claim the Justice does not think the constitution she swore to uphold defends human rights?

 

[Paulos23]

When you are right, you are right. That is what I was referring to. I argue it can and should be done if there is support for the cause.

I don't think there is that much support for what you want to amend, but if you can get enough people together to start the process, go ahead.

 

[TLK Valentine]

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.

Even when the people want something Unconstitutional?

 

[Aldebaran]

Not at all. I corrected you.

If you feel I misinterpreted you, then this can all be cleared up by YOU posting evidence where you claim the Justice does not think the constitution she swore to uphold defends human rights?

If she thinks it does, and recommends against ours on the basis of human rights, it's evidence enough. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

 

[JustOneWay]

If she thinks it does, and recommends against ours on the basis of human rights, it's evidence enough. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

Wrong answer. You did not clarify your accusation with evidence, and will receive no points for the half-hearted attempt.

The fact is you did not understand what she meant, and so you have determined she hates the Constitution. It is a clear fact that our (old) Constitution was written in a time that had no idea what the future would be like, so our constitution never took into account many issues for today. Newer constitutions around the world have a better understanding of the world today, and it makes logical sense to look at those as more up to date.

 

[Aldebaran]

Wrong answer. You did not clarify your accusation with evidence, and will receive no points for the half-hearted attempt.

The fact is you did not understand what she meant, and so you have determined she hates the Constitution. It is a clear fact that our (old) Constitution was written in a time that had no idea what the future would be like, so our constitution never took into account many issues for today. Newer constitutions around the world have a better understanding of the world today, and it makes logical sense to look at those as more up to date.

I gave you an answer you didn't agree with. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does show you are judgemental.

The constitution was written to be the foundation for all laws in this country. A foundation is important, and that is obvious to anyone who does construction. If you want a building or country to fall apart, you weaken the foundation.

 

[JustOneWay]

I gave you an answer you didn't agree with. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does show you are judgemental.

No it means I think you don't understand what she said, and you reinforce my belief with each additional post.

 

[Aldebaran]

No it means I think you don't understand what she said, and you reinforce my belief with each additional post.

I wasn't even addressing you, or your belief.

 

[JustOneWay]

I wasn't even addressing you, or your belief.

My belief that you did not understand what she was saying.

LOL That belief.

What? You were not addressing me when you said I am judgemental? LOL

 

[Aldebaran]

My belief that you did not understand what she was saying.

LOL That belief.

What? You were not addressing me when you said I am judgemental? LOL

Follow the sequence of posts to see what I meant. It'll be good for you to do that little bit of research.

 

[JustOneWay]

Follow the sequence of posts to see what I meant. It'll be good for you to do that little bit of research.

No. I have concluded that you make too many comments without understanding, then make false claims like saying you weren't addressing me when you were.

Have a good day.

 

[Aldebaran]

No. I have concluded that you make too many comments without understanding, then make false claims like saying you weren't addressing me when you were.

Have a good day.

Ok, my apologies. I'm engaged in multiple conversations on multiple threads. It gets a little confusing.

 

[AirPo]

I gave you an answer you didn't agree with. That doesn't make it wrong, but it does show you are judgemental.

The constitution was written to be the foundation for all laws in this country. A foundation is important, and that is obvious to anyone who does construction. If you want a building or country to fall apart, you weaken the foundation.

And if you don't want San Fransisco crashing to the ground again, you build a better foundation the second time around.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wrong answer. You did not clarify your accusation with evidence, and will receive no points for the half-hearted attempt.

The fact is you did not understand what she meant, and so you have determined she hates the Constitution. It is a clear fact that our (old) Constitution was written in a time that had no idea what the future would be like, so our constitution never took into account many issues for today. Newer constitutions around the world have a better understanding of the world today, and it makes logical sense to look at those as more up to date.

... and amend our own Constitution accordingly.

 

[Arcangl86]

If she thinks it does, and recommends against ours on the basis of human rights, it's evidence enough. Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

She recommends against it as a modern human's right instrument. It's a late 18th century document with 18th century values. Most of the rights we now take for granted are not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution and are the result of court decisions down the centuries. It's better to just use as a basis a document that has them enumerated rather then hope that the courts go the same direction ours did.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Right. The corrupt among them can then invent arguments for the side they agree with in order to justify a decision. If justice was blind, there would be no cause for taking sides.

It is the very purpose of the supreme court to take a side. I suspect very few people think the supreme court has always been right. But we have nothing else that can take its place.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Even when the people want something Unconstitutional?

Well lets be reasonable. If you are convening a constitutional amendment meeting, its precisely because you want something that is currently unconstitutional.