Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 73 of 73

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

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    You have no point. The question asked in the OP is actually answered in the Constitution.



    JWK
    This:

    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.
    And since conflicts arise either from competing laws or lack of clarity of laws, the Court must use their own interpretation of those laws based on precedence of previous rulings and their own knowledge and experiences. If things were clear, there would be no conflict to resolve.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 07-09-2018 at 12:11 PM.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post


    You have no point. The question asked in the OP is actually answered in the Constitution.



    JWK

    This:



    And since conflicts arise either from competing laws or lack of clarity of laws, the Court must use their own interpretation of those laws based on precedence of previous rulings and their own knowledge and experiences. If things were clear, there would be no conflict to resolve.

    You still have no point with regard to the question asked in the OP ___ a question which is answered in our Constitution!


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



    JWK



    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.

    Last edited by johnwk; 07-09-2018 at 04:16 PM.

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    You still have no point with regard to the question asked in the OP ___ a question which is answered in our Constitution!


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



    JWK



    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.

    I guess that settles that. All they have they do is read the text and all the answers are right there on a 240 year old document. Glad you cleared that up. But what happens if the the document contradicts itself? Oh I know. Ouija Board, right?

  5. #64

    legislative intent

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I guess that settles that. All they have they do is read the text and all the answers are right there on a 240 year old document. Glad you cleared that up. But what happens if the the document contradicts itself? Oh I know. Ouija Board, right?
    You forgot the Justice's duty is to also review the documented legislative intent as applied to the constitutional question being raised in order to arrive at a conclusion.


    Your adolescent comment about a "Ouija Board" is noted.


    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.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    .

    Supreme Court Justices are supposed to support “this Constitution” and only those laws made in “pursuance thereof”. But there are countless cases which can be pointed to in which the majority opinion blatantly subjugates both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution, and many of these cases, e.g., Helvering v. Davis and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, which upheld the Social Security Act, ignored the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction and opened the door to and introduce the deadly virus of socialism at our federal level.


    The sad thing is, we were warned about submitting to oppressive acts passed in violation of our constitution, but have stood by idle while a government created with defined and limited powers has grown into an oppressive monster which now controls and regulates almost every aspect of our lives; has all but snuffed out federalism, our Constitution’s plan; and has turned American citizens into tax slaves to support the whims and fancies of those who hold and exercise federal power.


    “When a free people submit to oppressive acts, passed in violation of their constitution, for a single day, they have thrown down the palladium of their liberty. Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud. It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism __ the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted is the beginning of the end of the nation’s ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787


    JWK



    Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

  8. #66
    To make decisions which support the legislation of the Congress/President.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Supreme Court Justices are supposed to support “this Constitution” and only those laws made in “pursuance thereof”. But there are countless cases which can be pointed to in which the majority opinion blatantly subjugates both the text and legislative intent of our Constitution, and many of these cases, e.g., Helvering v. Davis and Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, which upheld the Social Security Act, ignored the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction and opened the door to and introduce the deadly virus of socialism at our federal level.
    The payroll tax at issue in the case was clearly within Congress' taxing power under I.8.1.

    Supreme Court justices don't just hear cases involving constitutional issues. Many cases involve the interpretation of a federal statute, and if Congress doesn't like the way the Court interprets the statute Congress can amend it to overturn the result in the Court's decision.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    The payroll tax at issue in the case was clearly within Congress' taxing power under I.8.1.
    1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    "General welfare" doesn't mean what you think it means, Social Security is not justifiable by any of the enumerated powers.
    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

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    To make decisions which support the legislation of the Congress/President.
    To elaborate..

    The purpose of the Supreme Court is to retroactively authorize the blatantly unconstitutional actions of the Congress/President.

    The last time the court even tried to do something useful was in the Roosevelt administration, and they got taught who runs the show.

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    "General welfare" doesn't mean what you think it means, Social Security is not justifiable by any of the enumerated powers.
    I was referring to the tax, not to the rest of the program that was supposedly funded by the tax (taxing power vs. spending power). But as a matter of law "general welfare" means what the Supreme Court says it means. Given the Court's previous decision in the Butler case the result in Davis followed.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous

  13. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    I was referring to the tax, not to the rest of the program that was supposedly funded by the tax (taxing power vs. spending power). But as a matter of law "general welfare" means what the Supreme Court says it means. Given the Court's previous decision in the Butler case the result in Davis followed.
    The tax is only valid if the money raised is used for one of the enumerated purposes, "general welfare" is essentially meaningless since the rest of the Constitution makes it clear that the federal government's powers are few and limited, SCOTUS has been very wrong very often.
    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

  14. #72

    The Social Security Act was unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

    "General welfare" doesn't mean what you think it means, Social Security is not justifiable by any of the enumerated powers.
    You are absolutely correct about Social Security not being justified under the Constitution.


    Upholding the Social Security Act was an egregious example of a tyrannical and usurpation of power in which the Court intentionally refused to apply the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the framing and ratification debates giving rise to our Constitution. In these cases Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. case the Court stated:

    “Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”

    What is significant is, the court cited the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and it will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court refused to follow a fundamental rule of constitutional construction and review the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the framing and ratification debates. Instead, it was very eager to use something Hamilton wrote years after the Constitution had been adopted concerning the phrase “general welfare” in order to uphold the socialist/progressive Social Security Act as being constitutional.

    But, what is not pointed out by the Court is the Hamilton “view” which the Court relied upon was not made during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution. It was made after the Constitution had been ratified when Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury, and was made to gain support for appropriating revenue from the federal treasury to be used to encourage specific manufactures.

    In his report on Manufactures, Hamilton writes with reference to the meaning of the phrase “general welfare” and Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, See Page 136

    “These three qualifications excepted, the power to raise money is plenary and indefinite, and the objects to which it may be appropriated, are providing for the common defense and general welfare. The terms “general welfare” were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed or imported in those which preceded: otherwise, numerous exigencies incident to the affairs of a nation would have been left without a provision. The phrase is as comprehensive as any that could have been used; because it was not fit that the constitutional authority of the Union to appropriate its revenues should have been restricted within narrower limits than the “general welfare;” and because this necessarily embraces a vast variety of particulars, which are susceptible neither of specification nor of definition.”
    But that is in direct conflict with what Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution, Hamilton, in crystal clear language, refers to a “specification of particulars” which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

    This view expressed by Hamilton in the Federalist Papers during the framing and ratification debates is also in harmony with what Madison states during the framing and ratification debates.Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:

    "It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes…to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction…But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?..For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power…But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning…is an absurdity.”

    Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: “the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction.”[3 Elliots 95]

    Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out “was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes…”
    Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention“The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.”. [3 Elliots 442]

    For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.

    In fact, the Court relying upon words spoken after the Constitution had been adopted to determine the meaning of general welfare, and ignoring the meaning of “general welfare” as understood during the framing and ratification debates, violated the fundamental rules of constitutional construction. And this is how our Fifth Column judges and Justices use their power to impose their personal whims and fancies as the rule of law and ignore our Constitution.

    JWK

    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void.
    ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
    Last edited by johnwk; 08-21-2018 at 05:58 AM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Personally, I feel their true job is to function as practice targets for 1000-yard+ shots. That is about all for which they are good.

    Sadly, they seem to do almost anything but that.

    C'est la vie.
    Through lives and lives shalt thou pay, O' king.

    Pray for reset.


Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


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
  •