GENERAL CHAT forum: Constitutional Scholars or Political Hacks

Views: 7, Replies: 2 » Jump to the end
Apr 6, 2012 8:14 PM CST
Name: Jerry
Salem, IL
The recent acceptance of the Supreme Court to hear arguments concerning the healthcare law (Obamacare) has brought to mind why the Court has outlived its original purpose. Now it seems certain individuals are groomed for the seats almost from the time they leave law school. As they progress up the scale from circuit judge to the federal appeals courts, they are weeded out until one or two are considered as being next in line for a Supreme Court appointment. Political appointment, that is.

Makes no difference of which party is in power, the appointments are political. The comedy of President Bush of nominating a White House lawyer who many questioned how she ever obtained a law degree would have been a disaster should it have progressed any further than the initial discussion.

The Democrat appointees tend to have a liberal interpretation of the Constitution and the Republicans tend to be conservative. The recent ruling that "corporations are people" as far as campaign contributions go was a Republican zinger. I have no record of the number of five to four decisions being made in the past fifty years but I would take a strong guess it has been in the majority of the really important decisions. To me, that means four of the nine judges have no idea of what they are doing since they all are supposed to be reading the same document. With the current setup of five conservatives and four liberals voting as a block, the other eight justices may as well go home on a long vacation and let the Chief Justice write the opinion.

I seem to recall President Obama majoring in constitutional law at Harvard and being a professor of constitutional law at a university so he probably knows the Constitution as well as the political appointees on the bench. My gut instincts tell me his statements tending to castigate the conservative judges was to instigate a reprisal of knocking the Obamacare law down so he could go to the public with the record of fighting for the law against the conservatives. He even has a minor Republican appointee to a federal bench 'demanding' the White House explain his remarks with "a three page, single spaced letter". They are so blinded by their hatred of him they cannot see he is playing them like a cheap fiddle.

I would like to see the Supreme Court expanded to something like a total of twenty-one judges so the odds of obtaining a constitutionally sound opinion would be much greater. It is one thing to intimidate four or five people and another to intimidate ten or eleven people.
Jun 25, 2012 7:12 PM CST
Name: Jerry
Salem, IL
Read Justice Scalia's dissenting argument concerning immigration. I assume his job was to rule on the constitutionality of the issue, not whether it was right or wrong in its conception. A political hack injecting his personal prejudices into a constitutional issue. I rest my case.
Jun 28, 2012 2:50 PM CST
Name: Jerry
Salem, IL
Another 5 - 4 decision. Either 5 Justices or 4 Justices have no idea of how to read a law or the Constitution. This time a Conservative crossed over to the Liberal side. I pity the poor clerk who is charged with screening his e-mails.

« Back to the top
« homepage
« Controversy cubit homepage

You must first create a username and login before you can reply to this thread.


Talk freely. Controversy, politics, space travel, life after death, global warming, Ghosts or not, aliens, what have you. Life experiences that changed you. Critical thinking!

» Home
» Forums

Cubit owner: Lynxx