Was King Solomon an attorney?
That, as I see it is a major part of the problem. People who are attorneys often lack wisdom and common sense, because they focus in on the technical aspects and not the larger picture, reason, or common sense.
Is it common sense for hold up the framers work as fully perfect in today's society?
Were their notions of the framers and their opinions of the value of women, children, blacks, native Americans truly fair and just as we view fairness and justice today?
Is there anything anywhere that can unequivocally and exactly deny the right of a judge to interpret the law as they personally see fit?
The law was written by men (not women) and is all just based on opinions of those men.
Who is to say ultimately what is the correct interpretation of the law?
The constructionist position is flawed, as it assumes their interpretation itself is correct...their argument is essentially circular...as it is an opinion drawing on their own opinions for validity...
The current composition of the court is the product of political whim. Republicans put in justices who support republican policy. You don't seem to have a problem with that principle...but when a democrat places justices that reflect their political bias you go ape shit...
So this really isn't about the law, or legal qualifications, or any of the smokescreen you put up...
This is about politics, and Obama's choices are not going to be in line with republican politics.
So please stop all the self serving sanctimonious bullshit and get real...
This isn't about legal qualifications...this is about politics, and Obama's power to put in someone that reflects his personal choice.
The senate will decide, so it is not a dictatorship appointing whomever he likes without a process to stop him.
Quit your bitching. You have a court where the majority is right wing, and there is nothing Obama can do about that unless we have sudden deaths of justices...
That, as I see it is a major part of the problem. People who are attorneys often lack wisdom and common sense, because they focus in on the technical aspects and not the larger picture, reason, or common sense.
Is it common sense for hold up the framers work as fully perfect in today's society?
Were their notions of the framers and their opinions of the value of women, children, blacks, native Americans truly fair and just as we view fairness and justice today?
Is there anything anywhere that can unequivocally and exactly deny the right of a judge to interpret the law as they personally see fit?
The law was written by men (not women) and is all just based on opinions of those men.
Who is to say ultimately what is the correct interpretation of the law?
The constructionist position is flawed, as it assumes their interpretation itself is correct...their argument is essentially circular...as it is an opinion drawing on their own opinions for validity...
The current composition of the court is the product of political whim. Republicans put in justices who support republican policy. You don't seem to have a problem with that principle...but when a democrat places justices that reflect their political bias you go ape shit...
So this really isn't about the law, or legal qualifications, or any of the smokescreen you put up...
This is about politics, and Obama's choices are not going to be in line with republican politics.
So please stop all the self serving sanctimonious bullshit and get real...
This isn't about legal qualifications...this is about politics, and Obama's power to put in someone that reflects his personal choice.
The senate will decide, so it is not a dictatorship appointing whomever he likes without a process to stop him.
Quit your bitching. You have a court where the majority is right wing, and there is nothing Obama can do about that unless we have sudden deaths of justices...