Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Thursday, March 18, 2021

US Supreme Court

There are five sources that have guided interpretation of the Constitution: 
(1) the text and structure of the Constitution
(2) intentions of those who drafted, voted to propose, or voted to ratify the provision in question
(3) prior precedents (usually judicial)
(4) the social, political, and economic consequences of alternative interpretations
(5) natural law

There is general agreement that the first three of these sources are appropriate guides to interpretation, but considerable disagreement as to the relative weight that should be given to the three sources when they point in different directions. 

Many interpreters of the Constitution have suggested that the consequences of alternative interpretations are never relevant, even when all other considerations are evenly balanced. 

Natural law (higher law, God's law) is now only infrequently suggested as an interpretive guide, even though many of the framers of the Constitution recognized its appropriateness. 

Persons who favor heavy reliance on originalist sources (text and intentions) are commonly called "originalists." 

Persons who favor giving a more substantial weighting to precedent, consequences, or natural law are called "non-originalists."

In practice, disagreement between originalists and non-originalists often concerns whether to apply heightened judicial scrutiny to certain "fundamental rights" that are not explicitly protected in the text of the Constitution.

The following definitions are generally accepted by the Supreme Court Justices...
  • Textualist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the text and structure of the Constitution. Textualists often are skeptical of the ability of judges to determine collective "intent."
  • Intentionalist: An originalist who gives primary weight to the intentions of framers, members of proposing bodies, and ratifiers.
  • Pragmatist: A non-originalist who gives substantial weight to judicial precedent or the consequences of alternative interpretations, so as to sometimes favor a decision "wrong" on originalist terms because it promotes stability or in some other way promotes the public good.
  • Natural Law Theorist: A person who believes that higher moral law ought to trump inconsistent positive law.

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Democrats BASH Trump Over Supreme Court Nominee


Democrats and the mainstream media can ATTACK Trump all they want to over his Supreme Court Justice Selection, but the simple fact remains, the Republicans HAVE TO VOTES in the Senate to CONFIRM Amy Coney Barrett...  so the bullshit bitching is a MUTE point...  still, they are hoping that it will persuade voters to replace Trump with Biden on November 3, 2020...  but, if that happens, the damage will already be done...   AND, if the economy does not rebound with jobs growth, then the Democrats will pay the price in 2022 in Congress...   BUT, will have to wait until 2024 before another Republican can be elected to the Presidency and reinstate the Trump Ideas on business.

ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES...

The Supreme Court damage has already been done...  but, if the Democrats win the Presidential Election, what consequences will they bring to bear on US Citizens???

  • Well, for one, they will INCREASE TAXES
  • They will push States to defund police departments
  • They will bail out States that are leaning towards bankruptcy
  • then they will open the borders to immigration
  • they will pass Medicare for All
  • They will impose a WEALTH TAX
  • They will increase taxes on businesses and industries
  • They will start plans for the GREEN NEW DEAL
  • They will remove sanctions from IRAN
  • They will allow North Korea to become a nuclear power
  • They will negotiate trade deals that favor other countries
  • They will allow CHINA to grow their economy and military
  • They will stop the SPACE PROGRAM and redirect those monies

IF ANY OF THIS HAPPENS WILL IT BE A BAD THING?

PERSONALLY,
I have had marginal income all my life and have had to closely watch how the money was spend and have had to not buy things I wanted because I did not have the money nor did I want to go into debt in case I got laid off or fired again.  SO...  and this is strictly out of spite, I would love to see the DEMOCRATS take money away from those ARROGANT WEALTHY BASTARDS and redistribute that wealth to Americans and Immigrants that have hardly any money at all...

HOWEVER,
I have this sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach that if something like this were to happen that AMERICA'S WEALTHY would find clever legal ways with the best tax attorneys available to shelter their monies from taxes...  and, those companies who were faced with higher taxes would not hire as many employees in order to keep paying the same dividends to their stockholders.

IN THE LONG RUN,
I strongly believe that what the DEMOCRATS are planning to do would hurt AMERICANS...  but, we will just have to wait and see if my fears are real or not...

MEANWHILE,
they will blame TRUMP for everything that they can think of in order to convince they public that they should not vote to re-elect him for a second term.  And, this Supreme Court pick is just one of many arrows that Pelosi will pull out of her quiver and shoot at TRUMP...


Monday, September 28, 2020

Elections Have Consequences

As a result of the STILL CONTESTED (by Democrats) 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States or POTUS.

A consequence of being President is to be able to nominate Supreme Court Justices should vacancies arise and during the Trump Administration, two conservative Justices have been confirmed by the Republican Senate:

  • Neil Gorsuch 2017
  • Bret Kavanaugh 2018
And, a third justice was needed as a result of the death of RBG and so there is a pending vote in the Senate for Amy Coney Barrett (photo right).

If confirmed, and confirmation will happen, the Conservative Supreme Court Justices will have a 6-3 majority for a good 2-3 decades into the future.

THIS PISSES OFF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY...  obviously...

There are 792 Judges serving in the 3 main tiers of the US Court System and President Trump has appointed 194 of those judges of 24% in his first term as compared to 312 or 39% appointed by Obama during his first and second terms.

However, going back to Ronald Reagan to see how many appointed judges are still serving, we see the following results:
Democrats        400
Republicans     392

So, the Judicial System is just about equal in terms of liberal/conservative except the Supreme Court is going to be on a conservative direction for a long time...

Even if the Democrats win in 2020, the Judicial System will remain slanted towards the CONSERVATIVES...


BEGINNING TODAY

All postings for this blog will appear on my blog:  JOURNAL FOR DAILY PAGES....  all of the internal page links have been switched.  This bl...