Hello:
Could President Clinton ORDER the retraining of every single police department in the nation?? Nahhh.. But, her Supreme Court could.
Could President Clinton INSURE that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion be ENSHRINED into our laws, NEVER to be brought up again? Nahhh.. But, her Supreme Court could.
Could the president ORDER an end to sex based laws FOREVER?? Nahh.. But, her Supreme Court could.
Could President Clinton ORDER that the separation of church and state be ENFORCED?? Nahhh, but her Supreme Court could..
Could Hillary END mass incarceration as we know it? Nahhh. But, her Supreme Court could..
Could the president ENFORCE every citizens RIGHT to vote? Nahhh... But, her Supreme Court could.
Are you getting the idea yet?
excon
Well, yes, this WOULD be true, except apparently the GOP in the Senate has decided that no STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL President will ever be allowed to appoint a SCOTUS justice ever again....;-D....
Hello OS:
I think you're right... I think they'd be BOLD enough to block EVERY single nomination she makes. That would be, of course, if the Republicans hang on the the Senate, which is looking somewhat iffy.
excon
Oh excon...
what you are suggesting is that the supreme court be a government unto itself, making and enforcing law.
This surprises me coming from one who claims to be a "constitution lover". Explain to me how what you are suggesting is in any way constitutional. But lets see how dedicated you are to your proposal.
Lets change the Clinton to Trump and his appointments. Lets further say that these appointments vow to make voter i.d. the law of the land, no I.D., no voting, ever...or parental consent to abortion to minors, never to be brought up again, I suppose you would be o.k. with this power grab as well....
Careful what you ask for there ex...
It is more important to never use Comic Sans ever again.
Hello Mr:
I'm growing tired of it too.. Any suggestions?
excon
Hello again, DES:
I should add that every single position I outlined above is absolutely Constitutional. Once the court is properly stocked with liberal justices, when cases with those issues reach the Court, I have no doubt they'll reach the proper decision.. Does it sound like I'm gloating?? Well, if Trump wins, you can gloat back.
I'll argue them one by one, if you like, but NONE of them are hard. Let's take the abortion question.. The Supreme Court, in 1972, ALREADY reached the correct conclusion about a women's right to seek an abortion.. It simply needs to be re-affirmed and AMPLIFIED so right wingers will STOP chipping away at it.
excon
Hey there ex..
I think you misunderstood my response, or I didn't make it clear.
The examples I listed under what a Trump appointment might do are NOT things I would agree with..
As society changes, so should our ability to change certain laws which govern the society.
What if 20 years ago it was decreed by the supreme court that gay marriage shall NEVER be allowed, with no mechanism to change it.
This is what you are advocating.
This is what I am arguing against.
This is not a case of "legislating from the bench", this is a case of "Dictatorship" from the bench.
What if your theory were in place at the time of the Dred Scott decision, or Pace v Alabama, where the supreme court agreed it was constitutional to deny inter-racial marriage.
There is NO forever in this form of government, The founders believed this, which is why they included article 5 in the constitution...
Hello again ex....
The Supreme Court is NOT a political party deciding cases on ideology. It should not matter whether a Justice is Liberal OR conservative, They are to judge cases not on how they feel but rather on the constitutionality of a law, whether they agree with the law on an emotional level or not...
To suggest that we need a liberal court so liberal decisions can be had, is as bad as saying we need a conservative court to get conservative rulings. NO NO NO, we need an IMPARTIAL court...
The court is not supposed to be Political, look at the outcry recently from both sides regarding RBG statements on Trump...
You are free to educate me on anything, but so am I.
Do you know why the first SCOTUS was 6 justices?, it was so any decision would require a 4-2 vote, 66%, which is what is typically required to overturn most things in our government. This was so a decision wasn't left to a single vote, that a divided court would need to convince at least 1 from the other side...
You want the court to be KING....
I want the court to be a check in the balance
P.S.
I certainly will not be "gloating" should Trump win
Hello again, DES:
Let's be clear.. The Constitution is a LIBERAL document. To adhere to it, is to BE liberal.
Look.. Let's stop the PC crap... The Constitution is for FREEDOM for EVERYBODY... ONE side, wants to STOP the spread of freedom.. And, it's NOT my side.
excon
Hello again ex...
"the constitution is a Liberal document......" ??? sorry, youll have to explain that...
As to sides...
Which side demands "safe zones"/
which side wants conditions on freedoms (2nd amendment)
which side wants to limit religious freedoms?
which side advocates lawlessness, (rioting works!!!)
So yeah ex, Lets indeed stop the PC crap...
Yes, the fight to control the supreme court is indeed a major battle.
No decision in anything is ever final. Abortion will always be a contentious issue. Nothing is ever "enshrined forever" when large percentages of the population disagree.
Declaring any sex based law unconstitutional could happen but it won't because it would end all the privileges women have in American society (e.g. Exemption from the draft, alimony, favor in divorce and family court, leniency in criminal trials etc etc). Laws that discriminate against men would have to be changed. For example men would have be given the right to reject paternal responsibility, instead of just being beholden to whatever the mother wants etc. Women don't really want equality.
They're muy importante, but they're not hers, not yet anyways.
