Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Trump nominates Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hank77" data-source="post: 75373595" data-attributes="member: 378311"><p>It's possible for a person to be wealthy and a person of integrity.</p><p></p><p>But that's not what we're discussing here, is it?</p><p>We're talking about how a judge will interpret the Constitution. Whether they were ever wealthy or poor it shouldn't have any effect on how they interpret the Constitution.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I prefer a conservative jurist. That view has nothing to do with their party affiliation but how they interpret the Constitution in a textual manner rather than a progressive/living document manner.</p><p>If the Constitution needs to be updated then that should be accomplished with an amendment. </p><p>If a law is found to be unConstitutional then the Congress/or a state legislature needs to step up and correct the law so that it meets the Constitutional standard, not the other way around.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hank77, post: 75373595, member: 378311"] It's possible for a person to be wealthy and a person of integrity. But that's not what we're discussing here, is it? We're talking about how a judge will interpret the Constitution. Whether they were ever wealthy or poor it shouldn't have any effect on how they interpret the Constitution. Personally, I prefer a conservative jurist. That view has nothing to do with their party affiliation but how they interpret the Constitution in a textual manner rather than a progressive/living document manner. If the Constitution needs to be updated then that should be accomplished with an amendment. If a law is found to be unConstitutional then the Congress/or a state legislature needs to step up and correct the law so that it meets the Constitutional standard, not the other way around. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Trump nominates Amy Barrett to the Supreme Court.
Top
Bottom