Supreme Court nomination
Fox news debated the other day regarding the decision not to consider confirming the current candidate for the Supreme Court.
One view was that the GOP was waiting to see if they will win the election, if the GOP doesn't win they would quickly confirm.
If they win they will hold off and let the new President make a new selection.
The push back was that if they wait and they don't win the election, Obama could pull his nominee and they would have to deal with a potentially further left justice.
Dangerous
I wish the Supreme Court was required to use Originalism to interpret the Constitutionality of issues versus trying to use Textualism to change it.
At least as I understand it that would require a true constitutional amendment to make any changes versus a majority ruling based on right or left leaning justices interpretation.
One view was that the GOP was waiting to see if they will win the election, if the GOP doesn't win they would quickly confirm.
If they win they will hold off and let the new President make a new selection.
The push back was that if they wait and they don't win the election, Obama could pull his nominee and they would have to deal with a potentially further left justice.
Dangerous
I wish the Supreme Court was required to use Originalism to interpret the Constitutionality of issues versus trying to use Textualism to change it.
At least as I understand it that would require a true constitutional amendment to make any changes versus a majority ruling based on right or left leaning justices interpretation.
0
-
I still cannot find where in the Constitution it is stated that the Supreme Court (or anyone else) may "interpret" it. 0 -
Judicial Review is a power that the Supreme Court granted itself. We are where we are today because of the concept of balance of ideology on the court. This was the grounds for a revolution, in my opinion, but it was slow and steady (progressive), now after decades of complacency it's too late.
The concept of the Republic was lost with the 17th amendment.
The Constitution was lost with Judicial Review.0 -
Except for the rarest of occasions and under the narrowest of circumstances the modern Supreme Court has ruled against individual freedoms and rights; they rule to give government MORE power. Nothing will change if another government loving POS like Stevens or Ginsburg is appointed. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocklobster
I still cannot find where in the Constitution it is stated that the Supreme Court (or anyone else) may "interpret" it.
Of course it isn't, but they added it to their own charter a long while back. Not sure how or why they were allowed to usurp that power.0 -
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
"It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."
-Chief Justice John Marshall0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments