Posted on 10/22/2016 9:16:04 PM PDT by Innovative
Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesday’s presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than did Hillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trump’s bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.
Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallace’s question about the role of the courts. “The Supreme Court should represent all of us. That’s how I see the Court,” she said. “And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.”
Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesn’t—or shouldn’t—“represent” anyone. In the U.S. system that’s the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.
Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls “the American people,” which apparently excludes “the powerful.” But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called “the people.”
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
If Hillary gets control of the Supreme Court, America is over.
All the people she appoints will be under her thumb .. and they will do as she wants .. regardless of what the LAW SAYS.
I sure hope people realize that. It will be very, very bad for America to have such a person as POTUS.
So many of the American people don’t even know what the 1st and 2nd amendments entail.
Many white Republican women in such places as the Philadelphia suburbs are also huge abortion boosters even if they have not themselves killed their unborn children.
These same WSJ bastards endorsed her though, did they not? That’s like condemning drug use was simultaneously smoking crack.
Judges on the revised Supreme Court under Mrs. Bill can just vote liberal from home by email and not bother to go through the motions of hearing cases.
Ping to 20
Are you serious ..???? I didn’t know they could do that ..??
I read it earlier on FR, but it addresses the question of a "living constitution".
One that can be ignored if a court decides to just make up crap.
Jefferson nails it down that it is NOT.
You can AMEND the Constitution, but there are no penumbras or emanations.
You cannot make up crap. Period.
He tells you to go back and understand the "original intent" if any future issues come up.
This means that the 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with gay marriage, abortion, or illegals being citizens just by being born on US soil.
It is silent on those issues, so it reverts to the States. Or "the people".
Certainly NOT judges making up things that they happen to like.
I summarize the Constitution with the following excerpts from Supreme Court case opinions. These excerpts clarify, in broad terms, powers that are prohibited to the feds.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
the Supreme Court is very definitely NOT there to “represent us all!” It is not meant to be a ‘representative’ branch of government, just the opposite in fact.
Why O Why do these political hacks keep feeding us dumb Sheeple so many lies ... and Anti-American BS like this ‘nice sounding platitude?’
answer: because “we” are DUMB Sheeple and we eat it up.
True. I remember in college meeting some
of them taking classes, their argument figuring the child was better off dead than cared for by poor mothers, looking in horror as the poor had children.
However few understand that many poor
in Brazile love their children dearly and would never trade them for anything. They are only “poor” from a material standpoint.
You are exactly right.
She’d like to...
gut Hillary , not the Constitution
It’s the duty of the Military.
communism/socialism has never worked and the latest country socialism is totally destroying is the once rich Venezuela now in freefall(the msm Media hide this collapse of Venezuela to protect socialism cause they all are socialists).
Get out the vote for Trump. Trump can make America Great again.
Indeed!
Mainline Philly Pro Choice females see abortion in it’s original intended role for eugenics.
My mother made it clear to me very early on that it was very wrong to assign or equate being poor with a lack of dignity. There is but one way to determine a person’s value and that is the respect they have for themselves.
I remember her saying also that she would pick justices “Who understand how things work in the real world”. Liberals NEVER understand how things work, because they don’t live in the real world, and Supreme Court justices are supposed to rule on the legality and Constitutional basis of legislation, NOT make laws or re-engineer society.
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.