It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

page: 7
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:23 PM
link   
you can tell who read the judge's comments and who is just looking to be outraged, lol




posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Seems this Judge is stationed in Chicago, and lives near the Obama home.

This explains the whole thing.



OK. I'm a 2/3 of the way of seeing what this is about. Who appointed this man to the bench?


Believe it or not, Ronald Reagan, 35 years ago.


Well that shocked me. Although Ronnie was pretty progressive in a lot of ways.

OK. This is how I see it. The SCOTUS shut down Texas' discrimination, even with a level court, and it's time to throw some of them under the bus because they didn't rule as SOME would like.

THAT is why there is a need for the Court.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen
TREASONUS BASTARD.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Anyone who finds the Constitution "outdated' doesn't deserve to sit in a seat where they are required to rule by it.


Who was made free by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It is a trick question.


So you think the Constitution is outdated.

Okay.

Don't ever swear to rule by it then.

See?

Easy solved.



I raised my hand and swore to defend it, but didn't give up my intelligence at the same time. This federal judge has sat on the bench for 35 years, and based on his rulings seems to be a pretty reasonable guy. As I said before, this article that is quoted in the OP was not about the constitution, it was about professors being hired for law schools.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BubbaJoe

It also gave his opinion that the Constitution is outdated.

It wouldn't matter to most, but he is in a position where he HAS to rule on that "outdated" document.

Many of us raised our hands and took the oath. I'd like to think we didn't take it lightly.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Seems this Judge is stationed in Chicago, and lives near the Obama home.

This explains the whole thing.



OK. I'm a 2/3 of the way of seeing what this is about. Who appointed this man to the bench?


Believe it or not, Ronald Reagan, 35 years ago.


Well that shocked me. Although Ronnie was pretty progressive in a lot of ways.

OK. This is how I see it. The SCOTUS shut down Texas' discrimination, even with a level court, and it's time to throw some of them under the bus because they didn't rule as SOME would like.

THAT is why there is a need for the Court.


He was appointed by a conservative president, and the judge is a NY jew, his thoughts on abortion and same sex marriage have evolved over the years, and some seem to be having a problem with that.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:36 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


WHAT part of the Bill of Rights and the 14th are the proponents of an 'outdated' piece of paper missing?

WHAT needs to be changed ?


You realize neither of those were a part of the original document (constitution), right?

That they are amendments, and were therefore added (by democratic consensus, of course)?

And were therefore CHANGES to the original document.

As the document was allowed to be changed to reflect future changes in society.
edit on 28-6-2016 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




OK. This is how I see it. The SCOTUS shut down Texas' discrimination, even with a level court, and it's time to throw some of them under the bus because they didn't rule as SOME would like.


That's because the Scotus tries to have it both ways.

They are about the most inconsistent group of people I have ever seen.

Abortion bans 'unconstitutional'

Gun bans aren't.

Same EXACT reasoning applies to both issues.
edit on 28-6-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

And ?

I Want to know WHAT the problem is with that piece of paper in the 21st c entury.

WHAT do people want changed?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

So basically it's the fact that the SCOTUS isn't working in your favor anymore. That's a little childish. THAT is the reason for them. So one segment of society, no matter how vocal, can dominate another(unless you're a conglomerate). The one that wants dominance isn't going gently into the goodnight though. Thus we are here.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

It's the FACT that the Scotus answers to no one.

It is suppose to be apoltiical, and yet it's making political 'interpretations' on something that is quite clear.

In numerous LAWS called amendments.

There is MORE than one in play.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

It also gave his opinion that the Constitution is outdated.

It wouldn't matter to most, but he is in a position where he HAS to rule on that "outdated" document.

Many of us raised our hands and took the oath. I'd like to think we didn't take it lightly.


There seems to many that think the constitution is outdated, something like 27 states have called for a constitutional convention, the irony here is that, it mostly right leaning folks calling for this. I don't understand the logic, the right has nothing to gain from a constitutional convention.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

It's the FACT that the Scotus answers to no one.


Pretty much. That's why the Rep's are desperate to win the WH. So they can fill that 9th seat. Also why they won't confirm a candidate now. A blind man could see it.


It is suppose to be apoltiical, and yet it's making political 'interpretations' on something that is quite clear.


It's ALL political. Your problem is that America IS getting more progressive and some can't stand that. 2 choices. Accept or go kicking and screaming.... as it is now. The result will be the same. It'll just take longer.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid




OK. This is how I see it. The SCOTUS shut down Texas' discrimination, even with a level court, and it's time to throw some of them under the bus because they didn't rule as SOME would like.


That's because the Scotus tries to have it both ways.

They are about the most inconsistent group of people I have ever seen.

Abortion bans 'unconstitutional'

Gun bans aren't.

Same EXACT reasoning applies to both issues.


Please show me someone that owns an AR-15 in a well REGULATED militia, oh wait, you can't. The closest thing we have to a militia in this country is the National Guard, and I am pretty sure there are no bans on their weapons.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid

It's the FACT that the Scotus answers to no one.


Pretty much. That's why the Rep's are desperate to win the WH. So they can fill that 9th seat. Also why they won't confirm a candidate now. A blind man could see it.


It is suppose to be apoltiical, and yet it's making political 'interpretations' on something that is quite clear.


It's ALL political. Your problem is that America IS getting more progressive and some can't stand that. 2 choices. Accept or go kicking and screaming.... as it is now. The result will be the same. It'll just take longer.


Here is the saddest thing, the judge that Obama put forward, is well respected, even in Republican circles. I will guarantee, that if Hillary is elected in November, the Republican senate will confirm him in a heartbeat.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: intrepid




It's ALL political. Your problem is that America IS getting more progressive and some can't stand that. 2 choices. Accept or go kicking and screaming.... as it is now. The result will be the same. It'll just take longer.


And yet WHO is the one going around calling the constitution 'outdated'.

Since PROGRESSIVES can't stand THAT.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Deluxe comments coming from a U.S. Federal Judge about the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Richard Posner (7th Circuit) says he sees no reason for judges to study the Constitution !!

He claims it's too old and not up with today's culture.

He sees no value in studying any of it.

Sounds like he's really out of touch if you ask me.

I bet Obama agrees 100%.

Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It


According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner in a post published to Slate, U.S. judges should stop studying the Constitution.

“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner argued.





Priceless gem of a post, X. Bumped all the way to the 9th
if we could do him.. he deserves to be on the 9th Appeals
gang with that gaffe. MAybe a little further east if possible,
like Shanghai.
7th? Is this the same Posner that blew up one day hearing
about it-- and finally shouted
"I will not allow the Constitution in my court!"

Of course he was legally right, because rules of court (aka
'we're going to do as we damned well please') override and
are hierachally superior to anything else. At least until some-
body who didn't have to read the Citizen's Rule Book comes
in with friends and a rope. DISCLAIMER: That'd be just to
tie him into the chair and tickle him until he cheers up...

Personally I for a long time before this saw no value to the
bench by keeping Dick Poser on it. More a liability, and no typo.



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

That makes ZERO sense. I don't play, "I know you are but what am I."



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid




OK. This is how I see it. The SCOTUS shut down Texas' discrimination, even with a level court, and it's time to throw some of them under the bus because they didn't rule as SOME would like.


That's because the Scotus tries to have it both ways.

They are about the most inconsistent group of people I have ever seen.

Abortion bans 'unconstitutional'

Gun bans aren't.

Same EXACT reasoning applies to both issues.


Extreme fallacy in your logic if you are equating gun ownership with abortion. If you are denied a gun, you are denied a gun. If you are denied an abortion, financial hardship, emotional hardship, medical issues, and possibly death, how does that even equate in your mind?



posted on Jun, 28 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: intrepid




It's ALL political. Your problem is that America IS getting more progressive and some can't stand that. 2 choices. Accept or go kicking and screaming.... as it is now. The result will be the same. It'll just take longer.


And yet WHO is the one going around calling the constitution 'outdated'.

Since PROGRESSIVES can't stand THAT.


No, it is the right calling for constitutional conventions.



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join