Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 64

Thread: QUESTION: What is a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?

  1. #1

    Default QUESTION: What is a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?


    ANSWER:
    The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

    JWK

    Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Laws are not clear and precise. Judges are needed to try to determine lines of where they apply or do not apply and to settle disputes. They also need to decide which takes precedence if two laws conflict with each other. If a teacher takes away a pea shooter from a student in his class has he denied the student the right to bear arms? If the teacher tells him to sit down and shut up is he denying Freedom of Speech? The Supreme Court also has to decide if a law goes too far.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  4. #3

    Default

    "QUESTION: What is a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?"

    To protect ICE so they can protect us from foreign invaders.
    Protest the NSA! Send encrypted e-mails!
    My PGP Key
    PGP Fingerprint: 3A2E 6218 3722 3701 09C9 54CA 9BB3 104C 5049 B6B2

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Laws are not clear and precise. Judges are needed to try to determine lines of where they apply or do not apply and to settle disputes. They also need to decide which takes precedence if two laws conflict with each other. If a teacher takes away a pea shooter from a student in his class has he denied the student the right to bear arms? If the teacher tells him to sit down and shut up is he denying Freedom of Speech? The Supreme Court also has to decide if a law goes too far.
    You make it sounds like our laws are written by morons.
    BIGGER EMOJIS.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Laws are not clear and precise. Judges are needed to try to determine lines of where they apply or do not apply and to settle disputes. They also need to decide which takes precedence if two laws conflict with each other. If a teacher takes away a pea shooter from a student in his class has he denied the student the right to bear arms? If the teacher tells him to sit down and shut up is he denying Freedom of Speech? The Supreme Court also has to decide if a law goes too far.

    What does your above comment have to do with the question? It certainly doesn't answer the question, but it does misdirect the subject of the thread.


    JWK



    "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." -- Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968



    Last edited by johnwk; 07-05-2018 at 05:10 AM.

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Laws are not clear and precise. Judges are needed to try to determine lines of where they apply or do not apply and to settle disputes. They also need to decide which takes precedence if two laws conflict with each other. If a teacher takes away a pea shooter from a student in his class has he denied the student the right to bear arms? If the teacher tells him to sit down and shut up is he denying Freedom of Speech? The Supreme Court also has to decide if a law goes too far.
    He said "fundamental" not "tertiary".
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What does you above comment have to do with the question? It certainly doesn't answer the question, but it does misdirect the subject of the thread.
    You don't like our resident little weasel?
    BIGGER EMOJIS.

  9. #8

    Default

    The job is to uphold the law of the land . Really , most of the time a quite simple job .
    Do something Danke



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    The job is to uphold the law of the land . Really , most of the time a quite simple job .
    The "law of the land" is not always clear. Aside from saying how power is distributed, the Constitution is vague too. That leaves it open to interpretation. If they were crystal clear, there would be no debate. But laws and the Constitution cannot possibly cover every contingency.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-04-2018 at 11:08 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  12. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The "law of the land" is not always clear.
    Pretty clear to me . Maybe they should check in with me once a week .
    Do something Danke

  13. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Pretty clear to me . Maybe they should check in with me once a week .
    What does the " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean exactly? Who are "the people"? Not everybody was considered the same. Slaves only counted as part of a person in the original constitution. Would they be allowed to own any weapons or only part of a weapon since they were partial people? Can every citizen own every type of weapon ever created? Does it only cover the types of arms available at the time of the Constitution? To go extreme- is a known psychopath allowed to have a nuclear weapon? Can foreigners own nuclear weapons in the US? Illegal immigrants?
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  14. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What does the " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean exactly? Who are "the people"? Not everybody was considered the same. Slaves only counted as part of a person in the original constitution. Would they be allowed to own any weapons or only part of a weapon since they were partial people? Can every citizen own every type of weapon ever created? Does it only cover the types of arms available at the time of the Constitution? To go extreme- is a known psychopath allowed to have a nuclear weapon? Can foreigners own nuclear weapons in the US? Illegal immigrants?
    How much would it take for you to stop posting? We could start a kickstarted project. I am sure it would be popular.
    BIGGER EMOJIS.

  15. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    How much would it take for you to stop posting? We could start a kickstarted project. I am sure it would be popular.
    Thank you for your informative contribution to the discussion.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  16. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Thank you for your informative contribution to the discussion.
    I am guessing not much.
    BIGGER EMOJIS.

  17. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The "law of the land" is not always clear. Aside from saying how power is distributed, the Constitution is vague too. That leaves it open to interpretation. If they were crystal clear, there would be no debate. But laws and the Constitution cannot possibly cover every contingency.
    The 2nd amendment seems pretty clear, what interpretation do you believe exists?
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  18. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    What does the " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean exactly? Who are "the people"? Not everybody was considered the same. Slaves only counted as part of a person in the original constitution. Would they be allowed to own any weapons or only part of a weapon since they were partial people? Can every citizen own every type of weapon ever created? Does it only cover the types of arms available at the time of the Constitution? To go extreme- is a known psychopath allowed to have a nuclear weapon? Can foreigners own nuclear weapons in the US? Illegal immigrants?

    President Harry S. Truman signed the McMahon/Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946, transferring the control of atomic energy from military to civilian hands, effective on January 1, 1947.[5] This shift gave the members of the AEC complete control of the plants, laboratories, equipment, and personnel assembled during the war to produce the atomic bomb.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The "law of the land" is not always clear. Aside from saying how power is distributed, the Constitution is vague too. That leaves it open to interpretation. If they were crystal clear, there would be no debate. But laws and the Constitution cannot possibly cover every contingency.
    What does your above post have to do with the question asked?


    JWK

  21. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Laws are not clear and precise. Judges are needed to try to determine lines of where they apply or do not apply and to settle disputes. They also need to decide which takes precedence if two laws conflict with each other. If a teacher takes away a pea shooter from a student in his class has he denied the student the right to bear arms? If the teacher tells him to sit down and shut up is he denying Freedom of Speech? The Supreme Court also has to decide if a law goes too far.
    The Constitution is not rocket science. Having Supreme Court justices issuing opinion doesn't make it less confusing either because then you have debates over the interpretation of the opinions.
    Last edited by dude58677; 07-05-2018 at 07:44 AM.

  22. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dude58677 View Post
    The Constitution is not rocket science. Having Supreme Court justices issuing opinion doesn't make it less confusing either because then you have debates over the interpretation of the opinions.
    You don't. Their decisions are final even if it was 5-4 split.
    BIGGER EMOJIS.

  23. #20

    Default

    It seems to me that SCOTUS applies a Constitutional standard to the laws passed by Congress. There is no Federal law that says a shop cannot decline special orders for cakes. There was no law passed by Congress on which Roe v Wade was decided. States had their own laws. No federal law.
    "There are two freedoms - the false, where a man is free to do what he likes; the true, where he is free to do what he ought."~~Charles Kingsley

  24. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    You don't. Their decisions are final even if it was 5-4 split.
    No because of jury nullification, state nullification, Congress limits jurisdiction under article 3 section 2, and article 6 section 3 states that all state and federal officials take an oath to support the Constitution. No one us equal or above the Constitution. If the Supreme Court was the final arbiter then that would be authoritarian for a small group of people to rule on your rights and the founders wouldn't like that.

  25. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dude58677 View Post
    No because of jury nullification, state nullification, Congress limits jurisdiction under article 3 section 2, and article 6 section 3 states that all state and federal officials take an oath to support the Constitution. No one us equal or above the Constitution. If the Supreme Court was the final arbiter then that would be authoritarian for a small group of people to rule on your rights and the founders wouldn't like that.
    This is a very nice theory. How does this work in practice?
    BIGGER EMOJIS.

  26. #23

    Default

    What the Constitution says: https://constitutioncenter.org/inter...es/article-iii

    SECTION 1
    The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

    SECTION 2
    The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-- to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  27. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is a very nice theory. How does this work in practice?
    Jury Nullification worked with Cliven Bundy. Not the dismissal case but the one in Oregon.
    Last edited by dude58677; 07-05-2018 at 12:55 PM.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The 2nd amendment seems pretty clear, what interpretation do you believe exists?
    Actually the 2nd Amendment is unclear to a lot of people and generally misinterpreted, especially since word meanings have changed a bit.

    I've had to explain it a zillion times to people who think that the "well regulated militia" means the federal armies & that people can have guns in the military but do not need to personally have guns because of this.
    There is no spoon.

  30. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Actually the 2nd Amendment is unclear to a lot of people and generally misinterpreted, especially since word meanings have changed a bit.

    I've had to explain it a zillion times to people who think that the "well regulated militia" means the federal armies & that people can have guns in the military but do not need to personally have guns because of this.
    How about people who understand english?

    It basically says, that because a well regulated militia is required to maintain freedom, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    If it said that because pink forks are needed on the third Sunday of April for some religious reason, the government won't ever tell people what color forks they can buy - that means the government can't tell people what color forks they can buy - PERIOD. It doesn't matter if it is October, it doesn't matter if somebody buys a blue fork in April. It says the government won't tell people what color forks they can buy. The reason that they need to right to buy specific colored forks is mentioned, incidentally, but it has nothing to do with the second part that says people can buy whatever color fork they want, whenever. They can't then say, well, we won't allow people to buy black forks on Thursdays because the reason the law exists is so people can buy pink forks in April - because the law says they can buy whatever color fork they want whenever.

    "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a definitive statement that is not at all contingent on anything to do with any militia, well regulated or otherwise. It is simply an incidental statement that was put in for the purposes of helping us remember why the definitive statement is there.

    People on the left not only fail at basic reason and logic as well as language comprehension, they also miss the point of why the 2nd amendment exists which is ironic because they use that as the basis of their nonsensical argument.
    Last edited by dannno; 07-05-2018 at 01:53 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  31. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    How about people who understand english?

    It basically says, that because a well regulated militia is required to maintain freedom, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

    If it said that because pink forks are needed on the third Sunday of April for some religious reason, the government won't ever tell people what color forks they can buy - that means the government can't tell people what color forks they can buy - PERIOD. It doesn't matter if it is October, it doesn't matter if somebody buys a blue fork in April. It says the government won't tell people what color forks they can buy. The reason that they need to right to buy specific colored forks is mentioned, incidentally, but it has nothing to do with the second part that says people can buy whatever color fork they want, whenever. They can't then say, well, we won't allow people to buy black forks on Thursdays because the reason the law exists is so people can buy pink forks in April - because the law says they can buy whatever color fork they want whenever.

    "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is a definitive statement that is not at all contingent on anything to do with any militia, well regulated or otherwise. It is simply an incidental statement that was put in for the purposes of helping us remember why the definitive statement is there.

    People on the left not only fail at basic reason and logic, they also miss the point of why the 2nd amendment exists which is ironic because they use that as the basis of their nonsensical argument.
    Dude- a well-regulated militia does not mean the same to most people nowadays as it did in the 1700s.

    This particular meaning is what most Americans think nowadays:

    1.2 (in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
    So it seems to be part of the military- some even connect it with terrorists.

    The 2nd Amendment was written to mean local males 14 & up defending their community.

    Unfortunately, most of the people I have had to explain this to are not leftists.

    And I am 1000% in support of the 2nd Amendment.

    "An armed society is a polite society."
    -Robert A. Heinlein-
    There is no spoon.

  32. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Actually the 2nd Amendment is unclear to a lot of people and generally misinterpreted, especially since word meanings have changed a bit.

    I've had to explain it a zillion times to people who think that the "well regulated militia" means the federal armies & that people can have guns in the military but do not need to personally have guns because of this.
    The 2nd Amendment is perfectly clear and only Communist gaslighting has produced any confusion at all about its meaning.

    The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. Stuff in the middle is rationale, not active, text.
    Oligarchy delenda est

    “If you love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” - Samuel Adams

  33. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Dude- a well-regulated militia does not mean the same to most people nowadays as it did in the 1700s.

    This particular meaning is what most Americans think nowadays:


    So it seems to be part of the military- some even connect it with terrorists.

    The 2nd Amendment was written to mean local males 14 & up defending their community.

    Unfortunately, most of the people I have had to explain this to are not leftists.

    And I am 1000% in support of the 2nd Amendment.

    "An armed society is a polite society."
    -Robert A. Heinlein-
    Dude, you missed the whole point... It doesn't MATTER what a well regulated militia means. It could mean your grandma's toe fungus, it still doesn't change the meaning..

    They could have said "A well regulated Dodo bird hunting society, being necessary to hunt the Dodo bird, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Ok, the Dodo bird went extinct - doesn't matter - the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. That's what it says.

    You really shouldn't be playing into those leftist arguments, I mean, you can bring up what a well regulated militia is, was, whatever, but that doesn't change anything.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  34. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Dude, you missed the whole point... It doesn't MATTER what a well regulated militia means. It could mean your grandma's toe fungus, it still doesn't change the meaning..

    They could have said "A well regulated Dodo bird hunting society, being necessary to hunt the Dodo bird, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

    Ok, the Dodo bird went extinct - doesn't matter - the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Period. That's what it says.

    You really shouldn't be playing into those leftist arguments, I mean, you can bring up what a well regulated militia is, was, whatever, but that doesn't change anything.
    Again- these were not leftist. And I'm not "playing into their arguments"- I was showing you how I've had to explain the meaning of the 2nd Amendment many times to people who consider themselves to the right- even to some fellow RP supporters.

    I know very well what the meaning is- was just pointing out that many do not in these crazy days.
    There is no spoon.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. BEST Supreme Court justice
    By pochy1776 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-25-2012, 04:06 AM
  2. Best Supreme Court Justice-Ever?
    By Douglass Bartley in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-28-2012, 09:43 PM
  3. Replies: 43
    Last Post: 06-28-2011, 03:06 PM
  4. Who has been the BEST Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court?
    By John Taylor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-22-2010, 05:43 PM
  5. Supreme Court Chief Justice Demands More Pay for Court
    By clb09 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-02-2009, 01:11 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •