Posted on 10/07/2018 6:03:18 AM PDT by Arthur Wildfire! March
It is very simple. If anyone fears ANY Supreme Court Justice, he or she should embrace the Liberty Amendments:
~~~
First off, supreme Court justices are term limited.
-- secondly --
Chapter Four "empowers congress, upon three-fifths vote in the House and Senate, to override a majority opinion of the scotus. Likewise, so may the states, by three-fifths vote, override a majority opinion of the scotus. This power is ... limited to twenty-four months after the date of the opinion. Knowing that the states and a newly federalized congress stand ready to look over their shoulders, the wild social justice predispositions of scotus are certain to subside."
As matters know stand, it wouldn’t matter a whit if Justice Roberts had two votes and Kavanaugh none - we hope.At any given time someone (or two) justice(s) dominate the court by being the only persuadables. That was Justice Kennedy, after O’Connor retired. While O’Connor was on the Court, we had to hope that both O’Connor and Kennedy went the right way - and if either one of them didn’t, the decision would be wrong.
As matters now stand, Roberts is now the Democrats’ hope. If Kavanaugh is “another Roberts” like Kennedy was “another O’Connor,” I agree that will be worse - but at least we can hope that neither Kavanaugh nor Roberts comes to be “another O’Connor” - or Kennedy.
The next big test is Nov. 6; if the Senate improves then we’ll have good hope for a sound Court if one of the Dem-nominated justices leaves SCOTUS. And we could then look with equanimity on the prospective retirement of Thomas. If not, we’d have to hope to be able to hold or expand our lead in the 2020 cohort of Senators. Not as easy a task as gaining ground now. Republicans won’t have nearly as good a chance again for another 6 years.
“What if Kavanaugh turns out to be another ‘Justice’ Roberts?”
“He will remember what the Democrats did to him in every Leftist signature issue that comes before the court. Democrats guaranteed that he will always vote against them.”
You just made the case for the man not being qualified to be a Justice.
‘The current method seems to be working just fine.’
You would prefer to be manipulated by every fomented cultural conflict?
No thanks. Not a fan of reacharounds. I’m not content with being played.
Moot point now.
How convenient, but no, it’s not. Is that intentional ignorance or merely capitulation?
‘Fine’ was a poor choice of words. Like Churchill said about democracy our system is the worst there is except for all the rest. Again, I’ll take the founders system over Mark Levin any day.
Except for one thing: The public is led to believe that cultural conflict over judicial nominees & decisions is what the founders intended.
Rather, Congress plays an integral role that nobody talks about or chooses the safe bet by retreating to the Founders. Or, for that matter, we’re all distracted (played) with every other topic under the sun while Congress talks large and accomplishes absolutely nothing.
In the founders’ day, “shall hold their Offices during good Behavior” meant that a Justice might serve 8-10 years (if even).
If nothing else, the experience of the past 50 years dictates that the interpretation of “life appointment” mandates a change.
I agree with the foundation of the founders’ intent, but though much of what they wrote was very prescient, there is no ignoring that they were human, not gods or fortune tellers who could see the future.
I strongly-disagree with dismissal of discourse to ensure our system’s survival by running back to a soon-to-be 250 year-old system of governance with little intervention from Congress as, ironically, the founders intended (to keep the Constitution relevant).
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. You have provoked me to further examine the founders intent.
...tomorrow though, I’m about to have a couple of beers and some Chinese food right now.
Good grief. Just take the time to check his Liberty Amendments from your local library. The “current method” is AFU.
<>. I’ll take the founders over Mark Levin any day.<>
Good. Then you’ll support an Article V convention of the states to repeal the 17th Amendment.
That actually sounds like a great idea!
I’ve been looking at the founders’ intent since this whole circus woke me up. We’ve all been taken for a ride.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.