posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:29 PM
Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by Res Ipsa
In a way I agree with you on court appointments.I have always contended that supreme court justices should by definition make their rulings from the
literal translation of the constitution.Not by the "spirit" of the law.
Hair splitting and word twisting is not what their job is.It is to protect and defend the constitution,and apply that to the rulings.
Having read some of the "findings" of our more liberal jurists,where they lean toward improvised inturpertation instead of the factual letter of
I therfore have to say that I would have to support someone who would appoint strict constitutionalists to the bench.
My friend, if that were at all possible. We don't have classical legalism, we have legal realist. There is no black letter law. You, and 99.9% of
the people think that judges either interpret the law or use the four corners of the page. It is as phoney as the political rhetoric you hear from
Judges start with the result they want and work backwards to find the legal foundation to support it. Is it new? No. Look at the brilliant Chief
Justice John Marshall and what he did in Madison v Marbury and the McIntosh Indian case. Brilliant stuff, but he knew before hand how he needed it to
go. Today even a lay person can predict which side of the fence Scalia will come down on an issue. You can not vote or hope to have a "strict"
constitutionalist because they do not exist. You either get a Republican or a Democrat. Concervative or Liberal. What issues are most important
to you? Vote accordingly. Ginsberg might be able to hang on another 4 years....Maybe even Stevens...maybe. Scalia isn't going anywhere until a
Republican gets into office and then maybe after he is 99 years old, he is on a mission and feels he has a duty.
For the rest of you battling about which candidate has the most whacked religious leader associations.....you are so wasting your time. Who is going
to effect your lives!? That is all YOU should be concerned with.
Do you understand that when they make a law...you are kind of expected to obey it? Do you want gay marriage? Do you want Abortion made illegal?
Do you want to get 2 years of workmans comp for a permanent disability and not be able to sue for punitive damages? What is your position on Tort
reform? Do you give a sheet? If you have a concervative Court then you better have a safe and wealthy life. If you have money and are a big shot in
a corporation than don't be voting for Obama.
Socialism.......We have it for the rich and always have. If your rich then of course you want to keep your money and screw the poor there are many of
those professional welfare scam bastards out there, let them eat dirt. If your poor, you want the government to take care of your irresponsible lazy
ass. Did you buy a $400,000 house making only $45,000 a year....well who is going to bail your tarded butt out.
....Vote for who is going to help you. But don't try and convince me with propaganda and uninformed or plain lying sound bytes to vote for someone
that is going to help you. Me? I'm going to vote for the person that I believe is going to give us the best chance to help "US" the people of
the United States. I'm not going to tell you what is best for "YOU"
...You, Mr./Ms. Op. Are you intersted in the campaign's games or what the next President can do for you? If you make over $250,000 than you go
with McCain. If you don't have kids you go with McCain. I'm a brokeass 3rd year law student with 7 kids and $125,000 in student loans that is
looking to work as a City attorney making $45,000 a year. Who do you think I'm voting for? ( I also think he is best for the majority of us so
that is an added bonus and keeps me from being a hypocrit)