On Replacing RBG

[TBoneTX 45,570]

Highly interesting to me in regard to "balances" on the Supreme Court:

On Replacing RBG

With the estimable Brett Kavanaugh finally confirmed, conservatives now covet the Supreme Court seat held by 85-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The obvious thinking is that a 5-4 conservative majority is tenuous, but a 6-3 majority may ensure conservative dominance for decades. That's quite true, but a different issue is whether a 6-3 Court would produce decisions that are more deeply conservative than a 5-4 Court would produce. On first impression, replacing a solid liberal such as Ginsburg with a solid conservative would surely shift decisions to the right.  But [...]

Article continues here:
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/ruth-bader-ginsburg-replacement-supreme-court/

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

A majority is a majority.  And neither side should have too much power to make things happen “their” way.

[TBoneTX 45,570]

The "median" concept is fascinating, one must admit...

[Ban Hammer 13,417]

[Dashinka 24,628]

The interesting thing is that in theory, the court should not be ideological.  Of course in reality we know there are those that interpret the Consititution in an originalist manner (conservative), and those with a more leftist view and interpret the Consititution more as an imperfect document that they need to fix.  The concept of a median Justice is intriguing, and one wonders if there are any egos at play when one is in that position.

[OptimusSpice 164]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

interpret the Consititution more as an imperfect document that they need to fix

That is why I appreciate the relative simplicity of the document itself, it's build in methods of self preservation to be taken as written.  It doesn't need "fixed".  The only thing it does is limit the power of the government and the only reason THAT would need fixed are the very same reasons THAT was what was written in the first place.

[OptimusSpice 164]

The court has already well and truly overstepped it's own constitutional bounds.  The sad thing about that - as is the case with all 3 branches - once those bounds are crossed and that precedent is set, it's much harder to go back and "re-confine" them.  

[TBoneTX 45,570]

2 hours ago, OptimusSpice said:

The court has already well and truly overstepped it's own constitutional bounds.

This is an outgrowth of the philosophy that any policy (typically a social policy) unachievable legislatively must be enacted by means of the courts.

[TBoneTX 45,570]

7 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

one wonders if there are any egos at play when one is in that position.

Fascinating.  I suspect that this would be more rare than prevalent, but it might depend on how much that individual believed or valued his own "press."

[Dashinka 24,628]

3 hours ago, OptimusSpice said:

That is why I appreciate the relative simplicity of the document itself, it's build in methods of self preservation to be taken as written.  It doesn't need "fixed".  The only thing it does is limit the power of the government and the only reason THAT would need fixed are the very same reasons THAT was what was written in the first place.

The government limits is thething that seems to irritate the Left more than anything.

[OptimusSpice 164]

23 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

The government limits is thething that seems to irritate the Left more than anything.

What happens when the Democrats gets their all powerful government, then a Republican gains control of it? 

 

I don't want to see either party in absolute control of an unlimited government.  There is no good outcome.  It would no longer be the America of my birth, the America of my forefathers, or the America of our founders. 

[Dashinka 24,628]

2 hours ago, OptimusSpice said:

What happens when the Democrats gets their all powerful government, then a Republican gains control of it? 

 

I don't want to see either party in absolute control of an unlimited government.  There is no good outcome.  It would no longer be the America of my birth, the America of my forefathers, or the America of our founders. 

I’ve always had that question, and I think it sort of explains the implosion and radical shift of the Left leadership since the 2016 election.  You see, in their mind, they are the only ones fit to lead us, so when they lose power through the ballot box they need to do anything to illegitimatize those that beat them.  We see this with all the narratives around Trump, and they really showed their stripes during the Kavanaugh confirmation process. If they don’t regain the House or the Senate next month we may see even more incivility.

 

 I agree, there is nothing good with a single party control long-term, so we need the adult Dems to take control of their party and bring it back toward the center.

Edited October 13, 2018 by Bill & Katya

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

way to much judicial activism in this country, that is why the MOB is so bent out of shape. We are getting constitutional judges appointed. 

 

As I have always said, if we need some form of gun control, which we may need or may not need, the argument should be about changing the constitution and I would be ok with that either way.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

12 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

way to much judicial activism in this country, that is why the MOB is so bent out of shape. We are getting constitutional judges appointed. 

 

As I have always said, if we need some form of gun control, which we may need or may not need, the argument should be about changing the constitution and I would be ok with that either way. 

I would not be.  The founding fathers showed great wisdom in drafting a document that protects us from too much government control. 

 

Just look at ANY nation where guns came under government control and were confiscated... the results were usually devastating for the populace.