The Supreme Court

[counterstrikedude]

So with Obama winning and the obvious appointment of cronies/neppies, what do you think will happen with the Supreme Court? Will Obama diversify or stick with a typical democrat?

Out of all the changes going on now, I believe this will be one of the most important. And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism, I can only imagine the fate of future laws, with influence greatly exceeding that of prop 8.


Keep it cordial and polite - I simply want to here people's opinion!

 

[ProfJohn]

He will appoint left leaning judges. Ginsburg, Souter etc.

All the conservative judges will sit on the court till they die now.

But it is really hard to tell what will happen. Bush served 8 years and only got to appoint 2 people. Obama could for 4 years and only get to appoint 1 or 2 himself.

 

[Jschmuck2]

Hopefully he will seat some justices that restrict rights for even MORE people :roll:

 

[bamacre]

The USSC will be abolished and the enslavement of whitey will shortly follow.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: Jschmuck2
My opinion is that you're a moron and you can't spell.

/thread

I can spell fine.

edit: Sometimes I just don't care enough to use proof read. Unlike you, I have a life beyond AT.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

 

[Paratus]

I'm sure the left leaning judges are now thinking, "Thanks God we can retire now!"

 

[counterstrikedude]

g

 

[UberNeuman]

I think Hillary may have a shot.

 

[theeedude]

The old liberal guard will retire to be replaced with young, healthy liberal lawyers waiting in the wings, hopefully.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
g

q

 

[nageov3t]

I wonder if the democrats will try and use their new found mandate to attempt to create more seats on the court to bring it back towards the left.

 

[techs]

One of the shrewdest moves by Bush, not that there have been many, was choosing young nominees for the Supreme Court so they would potentially sit for many decades.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wonder if the democrats will try and use their new found mandate to attempt to create more seats on the court to bring it back towards the left.

That would go about as far as Icarus did with his wax wings.

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Paratus
I'm sure the left leaning judges are now thinking, "Thanks God we can retire now!"

Funny. True.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

haha well it was blatant judicial activism. the will of people spoke on prop 22, but the sf judge just had to have his way. im sure when prop 8 is passed it will go to another judge...XD

not surprising, california law sucks big ones.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

haha well it was blatant judicial activism. the will of people spoke on prop 22, but the sf judge just had to have his way. im sure when prop 8 is passed it will go to another judge...XD

not surprising, california law sucks big ones.

The majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. That's why we have courts, not to protect the majority's rights (which are done by the fact that they are the majority), but to protect the minority's rights from the oppressive majority.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

haha well it was blatant judicial activism. the will of people spoke on prop 22, but the sf judge just had to have his way. im sure when prop 8 is passed it will go to another judge...XD

not surprising, california law sucks big ones.

The majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. That's why we have courts, not to protect the majority's rights (which are done by the fact that they are the majority), but to protect the minority's rights from the oppressive majority.

dont feed me that b.s. this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with power. im not self-righteous about it, and neither should you.


the judge over-stepped his bounds and appealed to his emotions, not the law.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

haha well it was blatant judicial activism. the will of people spoke on prop 22, but the sf judge just had to have his way. im sure when prop 8 is passed it will go to another judge...XD

not surprising, california law sucks big ones.

The majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. That's why we have courts, not to protect the majority's rights (which are done by the fact that they are the majority), but to protect the minority's rights from the oppressive majority.

dont feed me that b.s. this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with power. im not self-righteous about it, and neither should you.


the judge over-stepped his bounds and appealed to his emotions, not the law.

The judges did not overstep their bounds. They interpret the law, and they said that equal protection (as the law states) means that gay people can be married.

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: bamacre
The USSC will be abolished and the enslavement of whitey will shortly follow.

Yes! I can't wait to have some slaves!

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

haha well it was blatant judicial activism. the will of people spoke on prop 22, but the sf judge just had to have his way. im sure when prop 8 is passed it will go to another judge...XD

not surprising, california law sucks big ones.

/facepalm

What you're complaining about is the entire reason why we have Supreme courts, to protect the rule of law from the potential abuses of democracy.
This is one of the checks and balances that the Founding Fathers intended.

 

[counterstrikedude]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

haha well it was blatant judicial activism. the will of people spoke on prop 22, but the sf judge just had to have his way. im sure when prop 8 is passed it will go to another judge...XD

not surprising, california law sucks big ones.

The majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. That's why we have courts, not to protect the majority's rights (which are done by the fact that they are the majority), but to protect the minority's rights from the oppressive majority.

dont feed me that b.s. this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with power. im not self-righteous about it, and neither should you.


the judge over-stepped his bounds and appealed to his emotions, not the law.

The judges did not overstep their bounds. They interpret the law, and they said that equal protection (as the law states) means that gay people can be married.

the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude

Originally posted by: AstroManLuca

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: counterstrikedude
And considering the recent Prop 8 in Cali as a result of judicial activism

judicial activism? They found the law unconstitutional. That's their JOB. I'm done though great night. Time to focus on real issues.

You're forgetting, the judicial activism argument only works if you personally disagree with the ruling.

haha well it was blatant judicial activism. the will of people spoke on prop 22, but the sf judge just had to have his way. im sure when prop 8 is passed it will go to another judge...XD

not surprising, california law sucks big ones.

The majority cannot trample on the rights of the minority. That's why we have courts, not to protect the majority's rights (which are done by the fact that they are the majority), but to protect the minority's rights from the oppressive majority.

dont feed me that b.s. this has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with power. im not self-righteous about it, and neither should you.


the judge over-stepped his bounds and appealed to his emotions, not the law.

The judges did not overstep their bounds. They interpret the law, and they said that equal protection (as the law states) means that gay people can be married.

the judges DID overstep their bounds. they rendered a legal vote into nothingness. the constitution offers no insights into gay marriage. the "interpretation" can be sourced from judicial activism, not ethical legal review.

from a legal perspective - they failed to meet the standards.

USSC has held time and time again that marriage is a fundamental right.

 

[GenHoth]

If he would respect my 2nd amendment rights I'd be pretty happy.