Posted on 06/27/2016 4:26:07 PM PDT by Cheerio
According to 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner in a post published to Slate, U.S. judges should stop studying the Constitution.
“I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation,” Posner argued.
“Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century,” he continued. “Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today.”
(Excerpt) Read more at mediaite.com ...
Please.
Possibly you made sense, except for your first remark.
Your imaginary inference of a “civic Jesus” is shocking on its face and a fail on a couple of other levels.
Please DO elaborate. It is hard to defend against vague generalities.
But be ready for the rebukes.
And the idea of a civic Jesus isn’t new. It arose 300 years or so into the life of the church when the temptation came its way.
“I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy,” he said.”
“THEY” (the leftist RINO faction of the Republican party) worked creatively over several decades time to redefine conservatism to an identity more fitting of their liberal values.
This “Judge” due lack of diligence, lack of awareness of his political surroundings has succumbed to their ruse.
at the start of our nation lawyer generally had three books.
the law dictionary, the bible and I forget the third (an almanac?)
Kiss off.
>>Time to hit the reset button<<
Yes sir.
This is your cogent answer? Lol.
Ask a fish in polluted water what water is, and you will get a pretty wild description.
This so called “judge” has got to go. If he doesn’t like his job, he needs to resign. Scumbag in black.
He would have made a great Nazi. Uncle Adolf would have loved him. Dumbass needs to throw away all of that bull**** on the shelves behind him. All he needs is the Constitution.
Alright. Lets look at every case he has been the “Jurist” over and one ounce of this BS determining a case is “due process”.
Any Federal Judge that does not believe in the Constitution is enough “due process” for me based on his own public convictions.
yes! Absolutely!
It’s ironic when people complain that the federal Constitution is obsolete since the unconstitutionally big federal government has been ignoring its constitutionally limited powers for many decades, most of the fed’s actions now based on 10th Amendment-protected state powers that the corrupt feds have stolen from the states.
The referenced judge, evidently indoctrinated at Harvard Law School, also wrongly ignores that the Founding States recognized that the Constitution would not stand the test of time which is why they famously made the Constitution amendable.
After all, since the states can amend the Constitution at their pleasure, the only people who complain that the Constitution is outdated are minority factions who are probably seeking to subert the will of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority as enumerated in the Constitution.
I don’t know whom I fear more, Islamofacists or Secular Progressive Jewish judges. They seem to be on the same side!
He is violating his oath of office and the public trust.
He is saying he does not believe the law is relevant to his job.
Yes, his past and future cases may be reviewed and some will be by the Supreme Court. If he applied person opinion, and not the Constition to any case, the Congress can bring articles of impeachment.
However, it is dangerous ground to impeach judges who, outside the courtroom, their express opinions or judicial philosophy.
If he does not believe the Constitution is the law of the land, we have a problem.
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.