Conservatives Slam Obama’s Answer About Supreme Court Justices

[Doomsday101]

A former law clerk for Clarence Thomas is leading a pack of critics who say Barack Obama’s comments about the Supreme Court justice reveal the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s ignorance and misunderstanding of the Constitution.

A weekend event at the 22,000-member Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., was meant to give both Obama and John McCain a chance to address questions of importance to the large evangelical community. Church Pastor Rick Warren, known for his bestselling book “The Purpose-Driven Life,” posed the series of questions to each candidate, which were aimed at getting to their personalities, foibles and leadership styles.

During the symposium, Obama said he would not have nominated Thomas to the bench because “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.”

Click here to see many of the question-and-answer segments at the Saddleback forum.

Obama then added that he would not have nominated Justice Antonin Scalia because they disagree, not because of any intellectual deficiencies.

Wendy E. Long, currently counsel to the The Judicial Confirmation Network, called Obama’s responses about the bench “ludicrous.” Long released a statement saying the remarks demonstrate Obama contradicts himself in his “own alleged criteria” for high court nominees.

”Obama started to say that Justice Thomas didn’t have enough ‘experience’ for the Supreme Court. In mid-sentence, when Obama realized that he himself has far less experience for the presidency than Justice Thomas had for the court in 1991, he shifted and said Justice Thomas ‘was not a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time,’” said Long, a former Senate aide whose conservative group works to get “highly qualified” justices confirmed to the bench.

“This is all reminiscent of (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid’s comment several years ago that Justice Thomas was ‘an embarrassment to the court’ and that his opinions ‘were poorly written’. Reid was exposed as the ignoramus then, and the Congressional Black Caucus asked him to stop using ‘stereotypes and caricatures,’” she continued.

Reid is among several critics who have called Thomas’ written opinions lightweight and suggested that he wants to abandon the principle of “stare decisis” — standing by precedent — and reinvent the wheel with every case.

The topic of several biographies, Thomas, who was confirmed to the court by a 52-48 margin, has also been described as disinterested because he does not ask questions during oral presentations before the court. The justice has defended himself against the criticism, it as an effort to demonstrate respect for the attorneys presenting their cases.

“Reasonable Supreme Court observers of all political stripes, who do not necessarily agree with Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence, consider his work to be scholarly and of top quality. And yet Senator Obama is, sadly, unable to acknowledge even that much about an intelligent, wonderful and kind man who broke racial barriers to rise to the very top of the legal profession,” said Helgi Walker, a former associate counsel to President Bush and former law clerk for Thomas.

Long and others said Thomas has repeatedly proven critics wrong about his intellectual capacity and repeated previous defenses that much of the criticism of Thomas is because he is a black conservative.

“Apparently, Obama can do no better than to recycle discredited statements of Harry Reid when it comes to Justice Thomas. Like other liberal elites, Obama cannot stand it when a black man strays from the ideological plantation and refuses to implement liberal policies through the courts. But Obama will never point out any intellectual deficiencies in Justice Thomas’s work, because he can’t. Justice Thomas’s opinions consistently reveal faithfulness to the Constitution, judicial modesty and deference to the will of the people in our representative democracy. That is opposed to everything that Obama and the liberals are trying to do in grabbing power from the people and giving it to the courts,” she said.


“It’s precisely because Justice Thomas has proven himself such a faithful steward of the Constitution that Barack Obama says he wouldn’t have nominated him,” said Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Policy Center and a former law clerk to Scalia. “If he is elected, Obama is a sure bet to appoint liberal judicial activists eager to invent farfetched constitutional ‘rights’ that entrench the left’s agenda on issues like same-sex marriage, stripping God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, child pornography, partial-birth abortion, and national security. It’s Obama who lacks the experience and judgment for the position that he seeks.”

Long did not offer comment to McCain’s response to the same question in which he said, “with all due respect,” he would not have nominated Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.

“Well, I think that the president of the United States has incredible responsibility in nominating people to the United States Supreme Court. They are lifetime positions, as well as the federal bench. There will be two or maybe three vacancies. This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record, of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench,” McCain said.

Left off both candidates’ lists were the nominal moderate in the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the newest Justice on the court Samuel Alito.

The nomination of justices to the bench is one of the most important criteria for conservatives in the coming election, and several leaders on the right have said they will swallow their distaste for McCain’s record on other matters and vote for him because they know he will nominate conservative justices.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page also took jabs at Obama’s answer, noting both his and Thomas’ career at the time they reached the highest office of their ambitions. The editorial noted that Obama’s response may have been inartful.

“Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are,” the editorial board wrote.

Long warned that Obama’s response reveals the kind of judges Obama would appoint.

“Obama wants justices who will do his bidding, who will implement the preferred policies of the liberal establishment – not Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who understand that the role of a judge is not to legislate from the bench,” she said.

She also slammed the candidate for saying that he would take the counsel from his wife and grandmother as well as former Sen. Sam Nunn and Sens. Dick Lugar, Ted Kennedy and Tom Coburn.

“Obama’s answer about the three wisest people in his life, upon whom he would rely heavily in his administration, also sheds light on the way he would choose Supreme Court Justices. Obama said he would consult his grandmother, his wife, and Ted Kennedy. This is unlikely to yield the highest quality judicial nominees who understand the Constitution and the role of judges in our constitutional democracy,” Long said.

[Danny White]

Exactly. Obama wishes he was a sharp and as smart as Clarence Thomas.

Thomas understands the Constitution... a document that Obama clearly has very little familiarity with.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Exactly. Obama wishes he was a sharp and as smart as Clarence Thomas.

Thomas understands the Constitution... a document that Obama clearly has very little familiarity with.

Has Clarence ever talked dirty with or to you? I know you have met him a few times and you are a clean cut good looking young man with pearly white smile that could rival the osmonds.

So...fess up, give us the dirt.

[Danny White]

Has Clarence ever talked dirty with or to you? I know you have met him a few times and you are a clean cut good looking young man with pearly white smile that could rival the osmonds.

So...fess up, give us the dirt.

Anita Hill's story has more holes than swiss cheese.

But even if it were true, what does that have to do with Thomas' intellect, his qualifications or his legal mind?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Anita Hill's story has more holes than swiss cheese.

But even if it were true, what does that have to do with Thomas' intellect, his qualifications or his legal mind?

I don't care about that Anita Hill hussy.

I am talking between you and Clarence.

Come on, don't hold back...dish the dirt.

As nirvana sang...Here we are now...Entertain us.

[Danny White]

I don't care about that Anita Hill hussy.

I am talking between you and Clarence.

Come on, don't hold back...dish the dirt.

As nirvana sang...Here we are now...Entertain us.

Just had my picture taken with him after a speech he gave.

I've never had the opportunity to spend quality time with him, but I do know that he's a huge Cowboys fan.

Be fun to go to a game with him, that's for sure.

[BrAinPaiNt]

Just had my picture taken with him after a speech he gave.

I've never had the opportunity to spend quality time with him, but I do know that he's a huge Cowboys fan.

Be fun to go to a game with him, that's for sure.

Boy talk about a big let down...Heck you could have made up some crazy stuff or something to entertain me a few more minutes until I leave work.

I got a new nickname for you...rhymes with PaltSeter. ;) :D :p:

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Is that an alien pubic hair on that picture of Long Dong Silver?

[DFWJC]

Is that an alien pubic hair on that picture of Long Dong Silver?
Baaaaad.:eek:

[SuspectCorner]

Exactly. Obama wishes he was a sharp and as smart as Clarence Thomas.

Thomas understands the Constitution... a document that Obama clearly has very little familiarity with.

You're joking, right?

[Angus]

You're joking, right?

He may be joking, but I'm not. Obama is not a constitutional lawyer, no matter what school allowed him to pretend he is. He is an adherent of the "living constitution" school that proposes to pay no heed to original intent or the amendment process, but to "reinterpret" the constitution to "make it better" without letting the people (those dolts who may not appreciate the special expertise of liberal judges) decide whether or not a proposed change is "better."

:cool:

[BrAinPaiNt]

I would say both current Presidential candidates and the current sitting president and VP don't seem to know or care much for the constitution...heck I doubt there are many on the hill that actually care about it like they claim. If they did they would not act and do the things they do.

[utrunner07]

I would say both current Presidential candidates and the current sitting president and VP don't seem to know or care much for the constitution...heck I doubt there are many on the hill that actually care about it like they claim. If they did they would not act and do the things they do.


Yup, and it seems to get worse every election...and Obama is the worst in this one...

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yup, and it seems to get worse every election...and Obama is the worst in this one...

Nah...he has no power yet, nor McCain.

Bush and Cheney are the worse because they have been abusing it.

But...Obama or McCain will get it soon and we will just be in for four more years of the government eroding the constitution.:(

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The problem with those who rely on what the framers intended is clear. The framers lived 230 years ago and society at that time has no bearing on society today. It isn't like the US constitution was frozen in the 1780s and was not made to be interpreted according to the present time.

All constitutions are the same. In Canada we face similar issues regarding federal provincial relations and interpretation of the Constitution Acts of 1867, 1982 etc.

Times change and the interpretation of the document has to change with the times.

[burmafrd]

And that is another idiotic statement from up north.

The men who wrote the Constituition have been proven over the centuries to have been incredibly insightful. The document (at least up untill the last 30 years or so) had had relatively few meaningful changes.

And another lesson for you, free of charge. Original intent is one of the foundations that is taught at any good law school. So sit down and shut up, or better yet go suck a ice cube.

[Angus]

The problem with those who rely on what the framers intended is clear. The framers lived 230 years ago and society at that time has no bearing on society today. It isn't like the US constitution was frozen in the 1780s and was not made to be interpreted according to the present time.

All constitutions are the same. In Canada we face similar issues regarding federal provincial relations and interpretation of the Constitution Acts of 1867, 1982 etc.

Times change and the interpretation of the document has to change with the times.

No. All constitutions are not the same.

That is why Canada has no basic law, no anchor. It is willow-the-wisp, with nothing that can be counted on to remain constant. And the U.S. has suffered the same fate in the hands of the liberal judges who legislate from the bench.

But the United States Constitution has a process for its amendment. Change for modernity was contemplated and arranged for, but on an orderly, democratic basis put in the hands of the people.

Liberal judges have usurped the U.S. Constitution. Your Canadian argument is fine for a willing-to-float country not founded on such principles, but not for this nation. There needs to be a reexamination of SCOTUS opinions over the last several decades.

:)

[ScipioCowboy]

The problem with those who rely on what the framers intended is clear. The framers lived 230 years ago and society at that time has no bearing on society today. It isn't like the US constitution was frozen in the 1780s and was not made to be interpreted according to the present time.

All constitutions are the same. In Canada we face similar issues regarding federal provincial relations and interpretation of the Constitution Acts of 1867, 1982 etc.

Times change and the interpretation of the document has to change with the times.

Indeed, times change. This is the very reason the Founding Fathers created a process through which the Constitution could be amended, revised, or changed only after a lengthy review by many different elected and appointed officials; in this way, one person can never usurp our rights or make changes solely in his or her interests.

Unfortunately, some overzealous, activist judges ignore this process. They've seized the power to make arbitrary changes, at their whim, in order to advance their own agendas. That simply doesn't strike me as very democratic.

[Doomsday101]

If we listened to the founding fathers, states would have more say so in their own affairs instead of being dictated to by Washington.

[SuspectCorner]

If we listened to the founding fathers, states would have more say so in their own affairs instead of being dictated to by Washington.

:hammer:

The Federal Government, particularly (but not exclusively) the Executive Branch, is running away with our Republic.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

No. All constitutions are not the same.

That is why Canada has no basic law, no anchor. It is willow-the-wisp, with nothing that can be counted on to remain constant. And the U.S. has suffered the same fate in the hands of the liberal judges who legislate from the bench.

But the United States Constitution has a process for its amendment. Change for modernity was contemplated and arranged for, but on an orderly, democratic basis put in the hands of the people.

Liberal judges have usurped the U.S. Constitution. Your Canadian argument is fine for a willing-to-float country not founded on such principles, but not for this nation. There needs to be a reexamination of SCOTUS opinions over the last several decades.

:)


No basic law? Please. We have our written constitution just like the US. It sets out divisions of powers, courts, federal jurisdiction etc

It isn't like Canada is a free for all where anything goes legally

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Indeed, times change. This is the very reason the Founding Fathers created a process through which the Constitution could be amended, revised, or changed only after a lengthy review by many different elected and appointed officials; in this way, one person can never usurp our rights or make changes solely in his or her interests.

Unfortunately, some overzealous, activist judges ignore this process. They've seized the power to make arbitrary changes, at their whim, in order to advance their own agendas. That simply doesn't strike me as very democratic.


Isn't the problem though that your constitution, with the lengthy process, requirements for x states to ratify etc basically making the constitution unamendable at this point?

When it was proclaimed in the 1780s, you had 13 states, much easier to get your what 3/4 majority ratifying than when you need to get 38 of 50.

It isn't like judges either in Canada or in the US are imposing views on others, they are somethings avant garde in their views but mostly they reflect what public opinion will be in the future. I mean take Board v Brown I think it was, no one could really dispute that case now, but then it was disputed. That was a liberal court but it was right.

[Aikbach]

Isn't the problem though that your constitution, with the lengthy process, requirements for x states to ratify etc basically making the constitution unamendable at this point?

When it was proclaimed in the 1780s, you had 13 states, much easier to get your what 3/4 majority ratifying than when you need to get 38 of 50.

It isn't like judges either in Canada or in the US are imposing views on others, they are somethings avant garde in their views but mostly they reflect what public opinion will be in the future. I mean take Board v Brown I think it was, no one could really dispute that case now, but then it was disputed. That was a liberal court but it was right.Problematic to have a majority of the states ratify a measure so drastic as to be brought up as an amendment to the very defining document of the land?

Only broad strokes of an extreme national urgency go so far as to be manifested as amendments to the United States constitution, if the states reject what the federal government proposes they have merely exercised their constitutional duty as members of the union and do so with careful discretion, amendments are not proposed without thoughtful inquiry and discussion.

You ask the courts to betray the very constitution they are sworn to uphold, let the legislators legislate and let the judiciaries practice judicious examination of law that is to be interpreted through the lens of historical precedent, English Common Law and before that the very wording of the constitution itself. No sweeping changes of policy are to be dictated by any court, only a yay or nay status to the laws reviewed.

Justices are not policy makers, merely guardians of constitutional law, they are accountable to the constitution and nothing else. If they betray it, they betray the republic and the people but the only way they can betray it is by being policy makers with rulings that improvise and mandate provisions not passed by legislation which would mean they usurped powers not given to them by the very constitution they are charged with defending.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Do you not think the amendment regime makes amendments basically impossible? I know we have an amending formula in Canada which basically guarantees there will be no such agreement. Your formula is just as unworkable.

I just think documents drafted in the 1780s and 1860s (Canada) have little bearing on 21st century world and you cannot be bound by them to the point you prevent change.

When was the last time the US constitution was amended? Must be at least 50 years.

We amended in 1982 but have failed in our last couple of attempts to further amend it.

[peplaw06]

Do you not think the amendment regime makes amendments basically impossible? I know we have an amending formula in Canada which basically guarantees there will be no such agreement. Your formula is just as unworkable.

I just think documents drafted in the 1780s and 1860s (Canada) have little bearing on 21st century world and you cannot be bound by them to the point you prevent change.

When was the last time the US constitution was amended? Must be at least 50 years.

We amended in 1982 but have failed in our last couple of attempts to further amend i.Close... 1992 was the last time. In fact in the past 50 years it's been amended 5 times.

And the 3/4 majority is no harder to find now than it was in the 1700s. That's how ratios work.

All that aside though.... do you really feel that a panel of 9 appointed justices should have the say to overrule a Republican system of government??? Doesn't really sound like a republic to me.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Close... 1992 was the last time. In fact in the past 50 years it's been amended 5 times.

And the 3/4 majority is no harder to find now than it was in the 1700s. That's how ratios work.

All that aside though.... do you really feel that a panel of 9 appointed justices should have the say to overrule a Republican system of government??? Doesn't really sound like a republic to me.

Depends on one's view of the judiciary. If it is a full and equal part of government, then yes, it should have that say. After all, doesn't your constitution refer to the judiciary as a third branch of the government along with the executive and the legislative? If that is the case, then the judiciary has every right to exercise its authority. Furthermore, under a system of checks and balances, seems to me it would the court's duty to keep the government in check and overrule laws it deems inappropriate, kind of like a Presidential Veto.

Now if you want it to be the subservient level that just rubber stamps, then you have a point.

I also disagree on your ratio argument. If only one of two of three have to agree, it is certainly easier than having to get twenty out of thirty to agree. To argue otherwise is silly.

You are correct about it being amended 5 times since 1960 but when you look at those amendments, they are hardly controversial. Poll taxes, succession of President under disability, voting age, limits to pay increases, hardly the stuff of major disagreement amongst the people. Those are more like minor housekeeping matters.

When you can get 3/4 to agree to the ERA, or meatier topics, give me a call.

[Brandon]

Obama is a fraud, people think Bush is bad? Wait until this crack head gets into office. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran are going to bend this guy over.

This is a candidate who is based entirely on hype. If he was white he wouldn't even be in the race.

He changes his religion like you change lanes on a high way.

He is a racist, he was apart of a church where the reverend clearly participated in racial proceedings.

He has no plans to do anything about the economy, if anything, he's setting it back ten more steps.

And thank fully, I will not be voting for him, or McCain for that matter. The Candidates blow, I'd rather have Jerry Jones run the United States.

[Aikbach]

Depends on one's view of the judiciary. If it is a full and equal part of government, then yes, it should have that say. After all, doesn't your constitution refer to the judiciary as a third branch of the government along with the executive and the legislative? If that is the case, then the judiciary has every right to exercise its authority. Furthermore, under a system of checks and balances, seems to me it would the court's duty to keep the government in check and overrule laws it deems inappropriate, kind of like a Presidential Veto.

Now if you want it to be the subservient level that just rubber stamps, then you have a point.

I also disagree on your ratio argument. If only one of two of three have to agree, it is certainly easier than having to get twenty out of thirty to agree. To argue otherwise is silly.

You are correct about it being amended 5 times since 1960 but when you look at those amendments, they are hardly controversial. Poll taxes, succession of President under disability, voting age, limits to pay increases, hardly the stuff of major disagreement amongst the people. Those are more like minor housekeeping matters.

When you can get 3/4 to agree to the ERA, or meatier topics, give me a call.The purpose of the court is to verify the constitutionality of law and affirm that it should stand or return to legislation to be amended, the court cannot effectively line item veto legislation or put new laws in to place out of the presumption that the the ones rejected were unconstitutional so the exact opposite of what was legislated must be legal.

The court is to affirm or deny the constitutional standing of a law or piece of legislation or highcourt ruling, not to make policy with judicial review and not to write alternate legislation with a ruling of their own.

As for America's recent amendments not passing your personal litmus test of importance cry me a river, when you are an American citizen maybe I'll give a hoot about what you think about American Constitutional Law; it was here centuries before you and it will out last you and your offspring by many more centuries.

[Angus]

Don't be too hard on our Canadian friend, Aikbach. It is obvious he has no conception of the separation of powers doctrine. (The liberal judges do, but choose to ignore it). He is as lost dabbling in U.S. law as I am in characterizing Canadian law.

:)

[MetalHead]

You're joking, right?

No,but sure are.

[peplaw06]

Depends on one's view of the judiciary. If it is a full and equal part of government, then yes, it should have that say. After all, doesn't your constitution refer to the judiciary as a third branch of the government along with the executive and the legislative? If that is the case, then the judiciary has every right to exercise its authority. Furthermore, under a system of checks and balances, seems to me it would the court's duty to keep the government in check and overrule laws it deems inappropriate, kind of like a Presidential Veto.Well my view of the judiciary doesn't give them unlimited powers. They have the power to interpret laws, and determine whether the laws that the other two branches enact pass Constitutional muster. They DON'T have the power to create laws. If they did, they would essentially have unlimited power. They could then create laws and overrule any laws created by any other branch.

Clearly you don't really know what their authority really is.

Now if you want it to be the subservient level that just rubber stamps, then you have a point. See last sentence above.

I also disagree on your ratio argument. If only one of two of three have to agree, it is certainly easier than having to get twenty out of thirty to agree. To argue otherwise is silly.Did you pass 5th grade math? Is it harder to get 75% of states to ratify an amendment than it is to get 75% of states to ratify an amendment? Silly? Yes it is.

You are correct about it being amended 5 times since 1960 but when you look at those amendments, they are hardly controversial. Poll taxes, succession of President under disability, voting age, limits to pay increases, hardly the stuff of major disagreement amongst the people. Those are more like minor housekeeping matters. Who gives a **** what the amendments were...? The point was you were wrong. Embarrassingly wrong.

When you can get 3/4 to agree to the ERA, or meatier topics, give me a call.Give me a call when Canada becomes globally relevant.

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Well my view of the judiciary doesn't give them unlimited powers. They have the power to interpret laws, and determine whether the laws that the other two branches enact pass Constitutional muster. They DON'T have the power to create laws. If they did, they would essentially have unlimited power. They could then create laws and overrule any laws created by any other branch.

Clearly you don't really know what their authority really is.

See last sentence above.

Did you pass 5th grade math? Is it harder to get 75% of states to ratify an amendment than it is to get 75% of states to ratify an amendment? Silly? Yes it is.

Who gives a **** what the amendments were...? The point was you were wrong. Embarrassingly wrong.

Give me a call when Canada becomes globally relevant.

If you honestly believe it is as easy to get 3 of 4 to agree than 30 of 40, then you are pretty naive. The ratio might be the same but come on, it is not as easy.

Anyway, yes I was "wrong" re the amendments comment which was more rhetorical than anything because I knew there had not been any substantial amendment. However, if you think those show your constitution can be amended to include real substantial amendments, then I have a bridge to sell you. Canada has the same problem with our amending formula. It is a nightmare which basically prevents any substantial amendment.

As for the authority of the judiciary, you mean the courts cannot propose legislation, no way, I never would have guessed. That still does not mean that they have to bow down to the legislature. The problem with all arguments against "liberal" courts defying legislatures is that at the end of the day, that argument basically renders a court a rubber stamp because in no circumstance will the court ever be able truly to check legislation in some eyes because they are unelected and that is outside their power.

As for the "relevant" comment, I expected more than that kind of comment from you. You should be above resorting to that kind of comment which I expect from others whenever they have no other way to respond.

[Aikbach]

If you honestly believe it is as easy to get 3 of 4 to agree than 30 of 40, then you are pretty naive. The ratio might be the same but come on, it is not as easy.

Anyway, yes I was "wrong" re the amendments comment which was more rhetorical than anything because I knew there had not been any substantial amendment. However, if you think those show your constitution can be amended to include real substantial amendments, then I have a bridge to sell you. Canada has the same problem with our amending formula. It is a nightmare which basically prevents any substantial amendment.

As for the authority of the judiciary, you mean the courts cannot propose legislation, no way, I never would have guessed. That still does not mean that they have to bow down to the legislature. The problem with all arguments against "liberal" courts defying legislatures is that at the end of the day, that argument basically renders a court a rubber stamp because in no circumstance will the court ever be able truly to check legislation in some eyes because they are unelected and that is outside their power.

As for the "relevant" comment, I expected more than that kind of comment from you. You should be above resorting to that kind of comment which I expect from others whenever they have no other way to respond.You set up straw men and have them disproven decisively and then have the gaul to get mad when you are rebuked?

You are the one making assertions of rubber stamping, you are the one twisting semantics to force the proverbial round peg into a square hole by holding to your ignorant presuppositions of the United States Constitution.

I'm not entirely certain what lens you've chosen to view it through but am convinced it is a misinformed and nonsensical one at best.

The court is designed to rule if previously deliberated legislation, court rulings and amendments are compliant to the constitutional provisions given to the distinctive branches of government. Very succinct and to the point, you seek to make things more complicated or as the popular word for such is today "nuanced" when the beautiful clarity and thoughtful simplicity of the framing document of America has provided what is legally mandated and permissible for the federal and state governments of the United States.

You seem to seek unlimited power for government, to let government's only restraint to be its own desires and wishes, all at the whim of those in power, that is the logical conclusion of ignoring the outstanding system of checks and balances the United States employs and the justified rebuke to judicial activism is that it betrays its constitutional function by acting as a legislator.

Politely I ask that you bow out of this argument until you develop a more studied opinion of the topic at hand.

[Angus]

If you honestly believe it is as easy to get 3 of 4 to agree than 30 of 40, then you are pretty naive. The ratio might be the same but come on, it is not as easy.

Anyway, yes I was "wrong" re the amendments comment which was more rhetorical than anything because I knew there had not been any substantial amendment. However, if you think those show your constitution can be amended to include real substantial amendments, then I have a bridge to sell you. Canada has the same problem with our amending formula. It is a nightmare which basically prevents any substantial amendment.

As for the authority of the judiciary, you mean the courts cannot propose legislation, no way, I never would have guessed. That still does not mean that they have to bow down to the legislature. The problem with all arguments against "liberal" courts defying legislatures is that at the end of the day, that argument basically renders a court a rubber stamp because in no circumstance will the court ever be able truly to check legislation in some eyes because they are unelected and that is outside their power.

As for the "relevant" comment, I expected more than that kind of comment from you. You should be above resorting to that kind of comment which I expect from others whenever they have no other way to respond.

Any Cowboys fan since 1977 is entitled to some leeway, but you are misunderstanding the reason for the discontent with liberal judges in the U.S.

The problem is not that liberal judges will sometimes obstruct or strike down laws enacted by the legislative branch, or hold to be illegal some action by the executive branch, it is that they will often misconstrue, misread (or personally amend) the constitution in order to do it. The judicial branch is supposed to hold the other branches to the constitution as written, not make up a new constitution to suit themselves.

:)

[peplaw06]

If you honestly believe it is as easy to get 3 of 4 to agree than 30 of 40, then you are pretty naive. The ratio might be the same but come on, it is not as easy. How is it naive to believe that 75% is the same as 75%? Come on, dazzle me with your math skills.

Anyway, yes I was "wrong" re the amendments comment which was more rhetorical than anything because I knew there had not been any substantial amendment. However, if you think those show your constitution can be amended to include real substantial amendments, then I have a bridge to sell you. Canada has the same problem with our amending formula. It is a nightmare which basically prevents any substantial amendment. The Constitution has only been amended 27 times. I don't think any amendment could be considered insubstantial.

The 23rd gave DC electoral votes, which was probably pretty substantial to inhabitants of DC, considering there were more of them than 13 other states.

The 24th prohibited poll taxes, and prohibited states from preventing poor people from voting if they didn't pay the tax. Sounds like that might be pretty important to poor people today. And it was a huge step in the civil rights arena at the time.

The 25th was admittedly the least substantial of the last five, but it's pretty important considering that there was an ambiguity in the wording of the Constitution. If the President ever was incapacitated but not dead, then it would be pretty important then. It just hasn't happened yet, so it seems insubstantial now.

The 26th lowered the voting age to 18, which was pretty important at the time, considering 18 year olds were being drafted to go serve in Vietnam. If they're going to serve their country and its leaders in battle, should they not have a say in who those leaders are?

The 27th is pretty obviously substantial. If Congress were allowed to vote raises for themselves which took effect during the term they voted, then what stops them from paying themselves outrageous sums of money?

Not every Amendment is going to be the Bill of Rights or the 14th Amendment. But for a document that has really only been changed 17 times since its inception, there aren't going to be many insubstantial amendments. You don't amend the Constitution on a whim.

As for the authority of the judiciary, you mean the courts cannot propose legislation, no way, I never would have guessed. That still does not mean that they have to bow down to the legislature.Yeah, that's exactly what I meant :rolleyes: Clearly the judicial branch doesn't bow down to the legislature. If I thought that, then I wouldn't be working in that field. The problem with all arguments against "liberal" courts defying legislatures is that at the end of the day, that argument basically renders a court a rubber stamp because in no circumstance will the court ever be able truly to check legislation in some eyes because they are unelected and that is outside their power.They are allowed to check legislation because they are unelected. The idea is for them to be uninfluenced by lobbyists. Doesn't really work that way, but that's the idea. However, being unelected is why they can't enact legislation. If you can't distinguish between the differences here, you may need some more education.

As for the "relevant" comment, I expected more than that kind of comment from you. You should be above resorting to that kind of comment which I expect from others whenever they have no other way to respond.So you take a shot at the USA because we aren't ratifying amendments you believe in, and get butt hurt because I take a shot back? Why is Canada above criticism, while the US is fair game?

[ScipioCowboy]

Isn't the problem though that your constitution, with the lengthy process, requirements for x states to ratify etc basically making the constitution unamendable at this point?

When it was proclaimed in the 1780s, you had 13 states, much easier to get your what 3/4 majority ratifying than when you need to get 38 of 50.

It isn't like judges either in Canada or in the US are imposing views on others, they are somethings avant garde in their views but mostly they reflect what public opinion will be in the future. I mean take Board v Brown I think it was, no one could really dispute that case now, but then it was disputed. That was a liberal court but it was right.

Anything I could say has already been said. You've clearly been taught a few things on this thread.

:laugh2:

[burmafrd]

Its not fair having a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

[peplaw06]

And another thing...

There are many reasons the Constitution has lasted as long as it has. Even today, the genius of the document is still evident.

One reason is that 200 + years later, it STILL provides state governments with power to provide for their constituents at a more local level. The Constitution doesn't pretend that the Federal Government is more suited to dictate the everyday lives of each citizen of the country better than 50 separate governments can speak to the more menial issues.

THAT is where the judiciary gets into trouble IMO. When it pretends that the Constitution is the end-all be-all, when it was clearly not intended to operate that way.

There is basically nothing in the Constitution about crime or marriage or food or housing or public utilities.... all things that most citizens can agree are "substantial" issues. Those things are better addressed on a local level. And when the Federal Courts start reading those issues into Constitutional interpretations, they cheapen the document.

The Constitution has lasted this long BECAUSE it is hard to amend. If it had been amended hundreds or thousands of times, the graph of it's value as a meaningful document would be on par with the US Dollar.

Controversial issues are NOT going to be addressed in Constitutional Amendments. If 75% of the states agree with something, by very definition it is not a controversial issue. The Constitution is amended when issues are past the point of controversial.

That does not mean that laws cannot be enacted on controversial issues however. That is done with a simple 50.1% majority of the representatives who are elected by the citizens, and face retribution if they don't do their constituents' bidding.

Which brings us full circle. I apologize to everyone for the Civics 101 lesson, but someone needed the info.