Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 73

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

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The 2nd amendment seems pretty clear, what interpretation do you believe exists?
    I don't think it is clear. Should children be able to buy guns? John Hinckley is free right now. Do you think he should legally possess a gun? I get that if someone really wants a gun they can get it. But commonsense would dictate that you make it as hard as possible for John Hinckley to get a gun.

    And how do you define arms? Should you be able to possess all types of bombs? What about nuclear weapons?

    The Framers were radicals. But they were much less so than today's hardcore libertarians. I would bet they would unanimously answer "NO" to all the questions about weapon's possession that I just asked.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post

    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.
    It isn't clear at all what the Constitution means. There is a lot open to interpretation. You have Amendments that are very vague. It is the job of the Supreme Court to have the final say, which is why it is important to have people who don't just look at the text of the Constitution, but appoint judges who are activists for liberty.

    Contraception was illegal in Connecticut. Many people who try to just interpret the Constitution would say "Well nothing about that in the text. Just leave it to the states." That is what Ron Paul says. Ron Paul thought sodomy laws were okay because states had those laws. That isn't what I say. I want judges who use an expansive definition of the 9th and 14th Amendments to shoot down laws like that. I don't believe states can take rights away.

    Here is smart person's take on the role of the courts and it isn't to just be faithful to the text.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f73f0a3451bc
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 07-05-2018 at 03:36 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    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?
    Naturally I am opposed to any slavery . Yes , I believe every citizen has the right to arm themselves . Every individual is responsible for whatever violent crimes they commit . I also believe there will be less crime when everyone is armed .
    Do something Danke

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    I don't think it is clear. Should children be able to buy guns? John Hinckley is free right now. Do you think he should legally possess a gun? I get that if someone really wants a gun they can get it. But commonsense would dictate that you make it as hard as possible for John Hinckley to get a gun.

    And how do you define arms? Should you be able to possess all types of bombs? What about nuclear weapons?

    The Framers were radicals. But they were much less so than today's hardcore libertarians. I would bet they would unanimously answer "NO" to all the questions about weapon's possession that I just asked.
    Children do not have full legal status for anything, J. Hinckley should be executed for attempted murder and the founders intended that private individuals should be able to own any arms the government did. (there was little difference between merchant ships and warships back then)

    The only reasonable restriction is on WMDs and there were no equivalents in the founders day.
    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

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Children do not have full legal status for anything, J. Hinckley should be executed for attempted murder and the founders intended that private individuals should be able to own any arms the government did. (there was little difference between merchant ships and warships back then)

    The only reasonable restriction is on WMDs and there were no equivalents in the founders day.
    To confirm, since John Hinckley is free, you are okay with him possessing a weapon. OJ Simpson should be able to possess weapons too?
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 07-05-2018 at 03:49 PM.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    It isn't clear at all what the Constitution means. There is a lot open to interpretation. You have Amendments that are very vague. It is the job of the Supreme Court to have the final say, which is why it is important to have people who don't just look at the text of the Constitution, but appoint judges who are activists for liberty.

    Contraception was illegal in Connecticut. Many people who try to just interpret the Constitution would say "Well nothing about that in the text. Just leave it to the states." That is what Ron Paul says. Ron Paul thought sodomy laws were okay because states had those laws. That isn't what I say. I want judges who use an expansive definition of the 9th and 14th Amendments to shoot down laws like that. I don't believe states can take rights away.

    Here is smart person's take on the role of the courts and it isn't to just be faithful to the text.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f73f0a3451bc
    You are giving SCOTUS too much power, they will abuse it, history proves that.
    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

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    To confirm, since John Hinckley is free, you are okay with him possessing a weapon.
    Anyone who should be free should have the right to weapons to defend themselves, Hinkley should be confined in six feet of dirt, failing that he should be confined in a prison or a mental ward.
    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

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    It isn't clear at all what the Constitution means. There is a lot open to interpretation. You have Amendments that are very vague. It is the job of the Supreme Court to have the final say, which is why it is important to have people who don't just look at the text of the Constitution, but appoint judges who are activists for liberty.

    Contraception was illegal in Connecticut. Many people who try to just interpret the Constitution would say "Well nothing about that in the text. Just leave it to the states." That is what Ron Paul says. Ron Paul thought sodomy laws were okay because states had those laws. That isn't what I say. I want judges who use an expansive definition of the 9th and 14th Amendments to shoot down laws like that. I don't believe states can take rights away.

    Here is smart person's take on the role of the courts and it isn't to just be faithful to the text.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.f73f0a3451bc

    What on earth does your post have to do with the question asked in the OP?


    JWK

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Anyone who should be free should have the right to weapons to defend themselves, Hinkley should be confined in six feet of dirt, failing that he should be confined in a prison or a mental ward.
    Exactly. A person who cannot be trusted with a firearm shouldn't be walking free in the first place. They should either be in a mental hospital, in prison, exiled, or executed.

    Hinckley should have been executed for a clear act of treason.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What on earth does your post have to do with the question asked in the OP?


    JWK
    Seemed like a pretty direct answer. I can make it shorter.

    "Interpret laws with a bias toward liberty."



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    To serve the banker's (and their bosses) social and economic engineering agenda.

    Or at least that's what it is, not necessarily what it is supposed to be.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Seemed like a pretty direct answer. I can make it shorter.

    "Interpret laws with a bias toward liberty."


    So, whatever a judge or Justice's personal idea is of "liberty", that is his/her baseline in "interpreting" our Constitution?


    Seems under your answer, there is no connection between our Constitution, and specific rules for deciding what its specific provisions were intended to mean, and therefore, too much latitude to make the constitution mean whatever a judge or Justices thinks it should mean.

    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.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by thoughtomator View Post
    Exactly. A person who cannot be trusted with a firearm shouldn't be walking free in the first place. They should either be in a mental hospital, in prison, exiled, or executed.

    Hinckley should have been executed for a clear act of treason.
    So the government should be able to decide who can and can't have guns. The "Right to Bear Arms" does not apply to all in the country.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    So, whatever a judge or Justice's personal idea is of "liberty", that is his/her baseline in "interpreting" our Constitution?


    Seems under your answer, there is no connection between our Constitution, and specific rules for deciding what its specific provisions were intended to mean, and therefore, too much latitude to make the constitution mean whatever a judge or Justices thinks it should mean.

    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.
    The Constitution itself is broad in what is says- so yes, the Congress and the Supreme Court have to interpret what the limits of it are. If Congress pass a law, the Supreme Court may have to decide if it goes too far against what the Constitution says.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So the government should be able to decide who can and can't have guns. The "Right to Bear Arms" does not apply to all in the country.
    No, he said anyone who can't be trusted (because they have committed certain crimes like murder) shouldn't be walking around loose, they should be dead or imprisoned.
    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

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    No, he said anyone who can't be trusted (because they have committed certain crimes like murder) shouldn't be walking around loose, they should be dead or imprisoned.
    Should prisoners be allowed to have guns?

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Should prisoners be allowed to have guns?
    Prisoners are denied many rights as part of their punishment, stop being an idiot. (if you can)
    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

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Prisoners are denied many rights as part of their punishment, stop being an idiot. (if you can)
    So the Right to Bear Arms does not apply to everybody. Who decides who is allowed and who isn't?



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Should prisoners be allowed to have guns?
    By act and conviction of a criminal offense individuals remanded to the state for punishment are stripped of many rights for their term of conviction. This is judicial precedent that far pre-dates the Constitution. Therefore, it would have been "settled" jurisprudence at the time the Constitution was written.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So the Right to Bear Arms does not apply to everybody. Who decides who is allowed and who isn't?
    The judge or jury that convicts them and sentences them to prison.
    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

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So the Right to Bear Arms does not apply to everybody. Who decides who is allowed and who isn't?
    Well I guess it starts when the person who is in prison tries to take away someone else's rights.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "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."

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Well I guess it starts when the person who is in prison tries to take away someone else's rights.
    Would you say somebody in jail for having marijuana for personal use (still a crime in most states though some are changing) has taken away somebody's rights?

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Would you say somebody in jail for having marijuana for personal use (still a crime in most states though some are changing) has taken away somebody's rights?
    No, they should never be imprisoned or arrested and should be allowed to own firearms.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc
    "You don't need a medical degree to spot obvious bullshit, that's actually a separate skill." -Scott Adams
    "When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q

    "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."

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So the government should be able to decide who can and can't have guns. The "Right to Bear Arms" does not apply to all in the country.
    What on earth does your post have to do with the question asked in the OP? Why do you always find a way to switch the subject of the thread? And why are so many draw into your desire to disrupt a particular discussion?



    JWK

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Would you say somebody in jail for having marijuana for personal use (still a crime in most states though some are changing) has taken away somebody's rights?
    It is merely a violation of implied terms of a contract. It's all contract violations of commercial corporation regulations being enforced under color of law. There are no "crimes" any more. There are only contract violations that are presumed to impede commercial activity.

    For example, murder is not prosecuted because one person kills another person, in violation of the 10 Commandments. Murder is prosecuted because there is one less slave to make profit for the bankers and the murderer is to be punished for impeding commerce. That's the correct perspective to view the justice system today.
    Last edited by devil21; 07-07-2018 at 10:59 AM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  30. #56
    xxxxx
    Last edited by Voluntarist; 07-29-2018 at 12:50 PM.
    You have the right to remain silent. Anything you post to the internet can and will be used to humiliate you.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    What on earth does your post have to do with the question asked in the OP? Why do you always find a way to switch the subject of the thread? And why are so many draw into your desire to disrupt a particular discussion?



    JWK
    Point being that the Constitution isn't crystal clear on what it allows and does not allow- that it must be interpreted. And the ultimate arbiter of that is the Supreme Court.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by devil21 View Post
    It is merely a violation of implied terms of a contract. It's all contract violations of commercial corporation regulations being enforced under color of law. There are no "crimes" any more. There are only contract violations that are presumed to impede commercial activity.

    For example, murder is not prosecuted because one person kills another person, in violation of the 10 Commandments. Murder is prosecuted because there is one less slave to make profit for the bankers and the murderer is to be punished for impeding commerce. That's the correct perspective to view the justice system today.
    Requires reposting since it was deemed necessary to move the thread to subforum death right after I posted it.
    Last edited by devil21; 07-07-2018 at 12:40 PM.
    "Let it not be said that we did nothing."-Ron Paul

    "We have set them on the hobby-horse of an idea about the absorption of individuality by the symbolic unit of COLLECTIVISM. They have never yet and they never will have the sense to reflect that this hobby-horse is a manifest violation of the most important law of nature, which has established from the very creation of the world one unit unlike another and precisely for the purpose of instituting individuality."- A Quote From Some Old Book

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Voluntarist View Post
    In practice, the fundamental job of a Supreme Court Justice is identical to the fundamental job of any officer or employee of government: to slowly and surely chip away at the fundamental rights of individuals.



    JWK

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post

    What on earth does your post have to do with the question asked in the OP? Why do you always find a way to switch the subject of the thread? And why are so many draw into your desire to disrupt a particular discussion?



    JWK

    Point being that the Constitution isn't crystal clear on what it allows and does not allow- that it must be interpreted. And the ultimate arbiter of that is the Supreme Court.

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



    JWK

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 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
  •