America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 3 years ago by delta1. 51 replies replies.
2 Pages12>
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
engletl Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 12-26-2000
Posts: 26,493
R.I.P.

I may not have liked her politics or idealogies. I pray her and her family have peace and comfort.
frankj1 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
deserving of a reply, but it appears another thread won out.
Appreciate the respect though.
ZRX1200 Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,589
Time stamp Holmes....I win!!
DrafterX Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,547
I heard a cop shot her... Mellow
bgz Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
I heard she should have died 5 years ago so Obama could fill her spot.
tonygraz Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2008
Posts: 20,243
DrafterX wrote:
I heard a cop shot her... Mellow


Did you think she was black ?
BuckyB93 Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,184
Another Rona victim
RayR Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Can you see my crocodile tears? Boo hoo! It's just like it was when Comrade John Lewis died in July.
I'm sure the Democratic Socialists of America will print a fitting tribute to Ruth like they did for Lewis, one of their staunchest supporters. I'm not sure though if Ruth was a paying member but she sure seemed like a fellow traveller.
frankj1 Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
RayR wrote:
Can you see my crocodile tears? Boo hoo! It's just like it was when Comrade John Lewis died in July.
I'm sure the Democratic Socialists of America will print a fitting tribute to Ruth like they did for Lewis, one of their staunchest supporters. I'm not sure though if Ruth was a paying member but she sure seemed like a fellow traveller.

smart people on both sides fear one party domination...


if you had everything you want you'd be supporting a dictatorship. There are other countries that live your dream.
You need the opposition if you want America to truly be America.
DrafterX Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,547
True... true... Mellow
frankj1 Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
thank you William.
DrafterX Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,547
ThumpUp
bgz Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
frank is wise.
RayR Offline
#14 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
frankj1 wrote:
smart people on both sides fear one party domination...


if you had everything you want you'd be supporting a dictatorship. There are other countries that live your dream.
You need the opposition if you want America to truly be America.


Frank, your failure is your belief that there are only 2 sides and they are in direct opposition. I don't fear one party domination because the real problem is we have two party domination now, a duopoly—a single ruling class represented by two wings of the same bird or prey. What they both equally fear is any real opposition if enough people woke up.
frankj1 Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
RayR wrote:
Frank, your failure is your belief that there are only 2 sides and they are in direct opposition. I don't fear one party domination because the real problem is we have two party domination now, a duopoly—a single ruling class represented by two wings of the same bird or prey. What they both equally fear is any real opposition if enough people woke up.

True, I stated my point as if there are only two sides, primarily because those are the camps that continually get elected.
I would like to see that change and do listen...hey, when you first dropped in here I asked you to stay for your different point of view. Turns out I don't agree often, but that doesn't ever make me turn off the volume.

But where I have failed if in fact I have failed at all, is in reaching you with the point that America functions best when it changes back and forth every so often. Despite the common refrain that the two parties are one and the same, they really aren't. It's just too easy to say. Certainly they share the power greed disease, but policies differ greatly.

I also have taken to saying Liberal and Conservative (with extremes and moderates in each) rather than Democrat and Republican, as neither "Party" truly represents individuals so well any more and dropping those monikers may eliminate chances of the negative Party Over Country.

Your lack of fear of one party domination would yield toxic levels of what you claim duopoly is creating without the opportunity to reset our GPS before we wade too far down the wrong road. At least now we get the opportunity every 4 years and even in between with other offices. Perfection can and should never exist, and it can not in any event.

At a minimum, two parties are needed, I'm hoping to live long enough to experience at least 3 viable parties
Backing a one party system that seems perfect to you would be a short sighted method to installing a feel good dictatorship.

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator.
ZRX1200 Offline
#16 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,589
Glass half full, she doesn’t have to see the second Trump term.
Smooth light Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Their are three sides of a coin. Forgot about the edge (we the people) taxpayer/voter's.
frankj1 Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
or 3 sides to every story, my side, your side, and the truth
Speyside Offline
#19 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Frank, both parties have forgotten they represent one group of people, Americans. Our founding fathers were, giants, brilliant, patriots, oh so many types of greatness. Do you know what they were not? Career politicians. I suspect they would have executed 98.2% of career politicians for treason. Are there any modern day Ben Franklin's or Tomas Jefferson's in politics? I think not. Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos are all in the private sector just to name a few. Love em or hate em these are the people who need to run our country.
Smooth light Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Than it would be money talks,FU everyone else.
rfenst Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
Opinion
Her Black Coffee Always Brewed Strong’
We clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her career and at home, she lived a life that reflected her vision of equality.


By Abbe R. Gluck and Gillian E. Metzger
Ms. Gluck and Ms. Metzger are former law clerks for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.


There was our justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “At the end of the day, the government is throwing to the wind the women’s entitlement. …” She was forcefully intervening at oral argument in the last months of her life, in a case about access to contraception under the Affordable Care Act. Her dissent, issued in July, condemned the majority for leaving potentially half a million women to “fend for themselves.”

It was her last opinion about gender equality after a lifetime of advocacy and leadership on the court. She was keenly aware, as she always was, of how the law affects real women in real life. And as always, nothing could stop her from speaking up.

We clerked for Justice Ginsburg in the 1997 and 2003 terms. She was a role model for us in law and in life; how to work, how to write, how to advocate, how to partner, how to mentor. She was already famous when we clerked for her. But that she later became a feminist icon in her octogenarian years for millions of little girls around the world is nothing short of extraordinary.

This didn’t happen through loudness of voice, harshness of words or a biting cynicism about the world. It was through a remarkable legal intellect, an incomparable work ethic and a powerful vision of what justice and equal treatment for men and women mean in reality. Her once-radical vision of gender equality penetrated the law in countless areas, not just reproductive rights but also workplace discrimination, class-action law, criminal procedure — in every aspect of how women interact with the world. And she lived that vision through every aspect of her personal life, too.

Justice Ginsburg was the last justice on the court to have spent time before the bench as a legal advocate for equality. (Justice Thurgood Marshall was the last before her.) Today we take for granted her vision of gender equality. But we should never forget that it was not until 1971 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the Constitution prohibits discrimination based on sex. That was Justice Ginsburg’s case — Reed v. Reed, which challenged the rule that men were the preferred administrators of estates of deceased persons, and that gave a grieving mother the right to administer the estate of the son she lost.

For Justice Ginsburg, equality did not mean special­ — she would say “pedestal” — treatment for women. Equality meant the same treatment for women and men. Stories from her childhood — as when she complained it was unfair that boys had wood shop while girls had sewing — are renowned. As an advocate, her litigation strategy zeroed in on that radical vision and realized it for all of us.

She often used male instead of female plaintiffs to show sex discrimination prevents all people from realizing their full potential. Why shouldn’t a man, for example, receive the same Social Security benefits a woman would receive, so he could stay home to care for his child after his spouse died? She successfully brought that question to the court in the 1975 case Weinberger v. Weisenfeld. She has said in interviews: “The aim was to break down the stereotypical view of men’s roles and women’s roles.”

Over the next 45 years, Justice Ginsburg would extend that vision into every corner of American life. In 1996, she wrote a pathbreaking opinion striking down Virginia’s provision of single-sex public education for men only (at a military institute), giving us both the law and the vocabulary to describe her vision. She eschewed the term “women’s rights.” Instead, equal protection demanded that both women and men be given “full citizenship stature — equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society.”

Then there were the dissents — they had an extraordinary impact even before she became the leader of the court’s liberal wing and gained the moniker “notorious R.B.G.” In 2006, with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, Justice Ginsburg became the only woman on the court. She spoke ever louder. In a case upholding a federal ban on late-term abortions, Justice Ginsburg’s dissent attacked the majority for its paternalistic concern that women could not be trusted to make decisions they would not regret: “The Court invokes an anti-abortion shibboleth for which it concededly has no reliable evidence,” she wrote. “This way of thinking reflects ancient notions about women’s place in the family and under the Constitution — ideas that have long since been discredited.”

In a criminal procedure case about a strip search of a 13-year-old girl for ibuprofen, the justice reacted to a male colleague’s asking why stripping in the gym was “a major thing.” Shaking out one’s bra and underwear and then being forced to sit in the hallway for two hours, she said, was not mere locker-room play. It was an “abuse of authority.”

In a 2007 equal pay case, Justice Ginsburg — herself a victim of early-career workplace discrimination — chided her colleagues for deciding that a woman who does not file a claim immediately can never file at all. This ignored the actual “characteristics of pay discrimination.” “Small initial discrepancies,” she wrote, “may not be seen as meat for a federal case, particularly when the employee, trying to succeed in a nontraditional environment, is averse to making waves.”

In a 2011 employment discrimination class action, she faulted colleagues for overlooking how “subjective decision making can be a vehicle for discrimination.” She referenced a favorite example from a favorite pastime: Orchestras with blind auditions hire more women.

The magnitude of her legal legacy cannot be overstated. But her impact was even greater because she modeled for us and for women and girls around the world how to live a life that reflected her legal vision. She demanded a lot from her law clerks, but demanded even more from herself. She was the hardest working, most deliberate person either one of us has ever worked for. She taught us to be strong and to stand behind our work. She gave countless women and men opportunities and support in the life of the law. She got to know all of our children. Her famous faxes came across the channels at all hours of the night. Her black coffee always brewed strong.

In her home life, she modeled to us how to translate the radical legal change she worked to the personal. She and her husband, Martin, were insistently equal co-partners in marriage and parenting and had a marriage for the ages.

Her commitments were always the same and grew ever louder. Even at the very end, she reminded us how much more work there is left to do.

Abbe R. Gluck is a law professor and faculty director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School. Gillian E. Metzger is a law professor and faculty co-director of the Center for Constitutional Governance at Columbia Law School.
Smooth light Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Have a Baby Ruth.
I didn't know this is modern history class or POD. You get, "A"on opinion, and a "0"on your own opinion. Use your 🧠/head , not just a hat rack. ❄️
Speyside Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Robert has argued multiple times in front of the supreme court. Have you?
Smooth light Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Can she mail-in vote, like all others that got ballots?The living dead, opinion.
HAVE YOU EITHER. have another candy bar.
rfenst Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
Speyside wrote:
Robert has argued multiple times in front of the supreme court. Have you?

I wish I was that good. Never even close in my wildest dreams.
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
Speyside wrote:
Robert has argued multiple times in front of the supreme court. Have you?


Smoothie argued in front of the Supreme Court but then security told him to move along.
rfenst Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
HockeyDad wrote:
Smoothie argued in front of the Supreme Court but then security told him to move along.

How did you know I just made a smoothie?
HockeyDad Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,128
Too Much Information
rfenst Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
HockeyDad wrote:
Too Much Information

But I was within the cone of protection!
ZRX1200 Offline
#30 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,589
What an article!!

“Access” to contraception.....I remember reading about that in the constitution. Love these bits, you can literally access contraception anywhere in the US. The left refused to use language to accurately portray their intent. They want it PAYED FOR. Even though providing access (REAL ACCESS) to contraception is supposed to be a major function of planned parenthood the left wants to ignore that avenue of availability or even county health departments who ALSO dispense contraception at no charge.

RBG did and said plenty I disagree with but she wrote very well worded decisions. And now all we get is lionizations about her life in areas of Liberia causes. I didn’t like her, and I’m trampling on her grave less than the left and the media. Really disgusting how people are used for props.
Smooth light Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Contraception: keep a aspirin between her legs and we wouldn't have these abortion headaches after the fact. Spread'en and you get'en.🤰
RayR Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
rfenst wrote:
Opinion
Her Black Coffee Always Brewed Strong’
We clerked for Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In her career and at home, she lived a life that reflected her vision of equality.


By Abbe R. Gluck and Gillian E. Metzger
Ms. Gluck and Ms. Metzger are former law clerks for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.




All this glowing article proves to me is Ginsburg was an activist judge. I could care less about her feelings or "vision of equality". I can't find those as superpowers delegated to any branch of government in the Constitution. Why are these cases even federal issues to begin with? This is the problem with centralization of power in distant capitols, all you get are busybody's who think they are smarter than the lowly rubes and need to micromanage every aspect of their lives.
rfenst Offline
#33 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
All this glowing opinion/letter to the editor article proves to me is that two of her clerks thought very highly of her.
RayR Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
rfenst wrote:
All this glowing article proves to me is that two of her clerks thought very highly of her.


Yes, that's obvious. I could care less about their feelings either.
Buckwheat Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 04-15-2004
Posts: 12,251
RayR wrote:
All this glowing article proves to me is Ginsburg was an activist judge. I could care less about her feelings or "vision of equality". I can't find those as superpowers delegated to any branch of government in the Constitution. Why are these cases even federal issues to begin with? This is the problem with centralization of power in distant capitols, all you get are busybody's who think they are smarter than the lowly rubes and need to micromanage every aspect of their lives.


The conservatives always like to throw out the "Activist Judge" card until a judge hands down a decision that they like. Can you say "Citizens United v. FEC"? Worst decision from any court since Plessy v. Ferguson. ram27bat
ZRX1200 Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,589
#33 Robert I agree
RayR Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
Buckwheat wrote:
The conservatives always like to throw out the "Activist Judge" card until a judge hands down a decision that they like. Can you say "Citizens United v. FEC"? Worst decision from any court since Plessy v. Ferguson. ram27bat


I'm not a conservative...so what's your point?
Smooth light Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
They give opinions, on the law,not make law.
Enforcement is someone else's job, like the executive branch, making love is the Congressional branch job.

Anarchist just want to get rid of the fu*king system. DEM-sure helping till they get power back, just ask the fake news.

Blind leading the crippled and crazy 😎.
frankj1 Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
RayR wrote:
All this glowing article proves to me is Ginsburg was an activist judge. I could care less about her feelings or "vision of equality". I can't find those as superpowers delegated to any branch of government in the Constitution. Why are these cases even federal issues to begin with? This is the problem with centralization of power in distant capitols, all you get are busybody's who think they are smarter than the lowly rubes and need to micromanage every aspect of their lives.

The Declaration of Independence does state the truth for this new nation, not the vision, of equality.

"that all men (read humans) are created equal"

It would seem self evident that all branches of government protect that truism and the assumptions inherently provided by the Creator of all men.

Not sure if I am an originalist but wouldn't that have bearing today?
RayR Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
frankj1 wrote:
The Declaration of Independence does state the truth for this new nation, not the vision, of equality.

"that all men (read humans) are created equal"

It would seem self evident that all branches of government protect that truism and the assumptions inherently provided by the Creator of all men.

Not sure if I am an originalist but wouldn't that have bearing today?


The Declaration of Independence didn't proclaim the 13 colonies secession from England was forming a "new nation".
They colonies joined together to proclaim independence from the centralized militaristic mercantilist empire of King George and listed the reasons why, his "history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States". The 13 colonies were essentially self governing entities before and reasonable content with the arrangement.
Hardly anybody was interested in sacrificing their sovereignty as free independent States to form another centralized State like the the State of Great Britain. I say hardly because there were always nefarious characters like Alexander Hamilton and his nationalist ilk that had other ideas.
The beginning of the last paragraph, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America" tells the story right there, notice "united" was not capitalized by Jefferson. No new nation called the United States of America was envisioned but a republic of free independent States was. In the 1783 Treaty of Paris, Britain acknowledged that each former colony were now free, sovereign, and independent states.
Not exactly what we have now with this Leviathan federal government ruling over everything from sea to shining sea and beyond is it?

"that all men are created equal" Sounds great on paper. Of course men are created equal more or less when they are born, some are gifted, some not so much and some not at all. Every form of government, every politician talks about and promises equality, but what that usually means is the rulers will tell you what their idea of equality is and too bad if you don't consent to their vision. It usually means there will be a robbery in progress, some people will be less equal than others by force and a bloody mess.
Jefferson wasn't talking about some Utopian fantasy of equality or enforced equality by some government edict, he was talking about an ideal, those "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."



frankj1 Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
RayR wrote:
The Declaration of Independence didn't proclaim the 13 colonies secession from England was forming a "new nation".
They colonies joined together to proclaim independence from the centralized militaristic mercantilist empire of King George and listed the reasons why, his "history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States". The 13 colonies were essentially self governing entities before and reasonable content with the arrangement.
Hardly anybody was interested in sacrificing their sovereignty as free independent States to form another centralized State like the the State of Great Britain. I say hardly because there were always nefarious characters like Alexander Hamilton and his nationalist ilk that had other ideas.
The beginning of the last paragraph, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America" tells the story right there, notice "united" was not capitalized by Jefferson. No new nation called the United States of America was envisioned but a republic of free independent States was. In the 1783 Treaty of Paris, Britain acknowledged that each former colony were now free, sovereign, and independent states.
Not exactly what we have now with this Leviathan federal government ruling over everything from sea to shining sea and beyond is it?

"that all men are created equal" Sounds great on paper. Of course men are created equal more or less when they are born, some are gifted, some not so much and some not at all. Every form of government, every politician talks about and promises equality, but what that usually means is the rulers will tell you what their idea of equality is and too bad if you don't consent to their vision. It usually means there will be a robbery in progress, some people will be less equal than others by force and a bloody mess.
Jefferson wasn't talking about some Utopian fantasy of equality or enforced equality by some government edict, he was talking about an ideal, those "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."




Don't be offended if I ignore the peripheral deflection and unnecessary lecture, but the highlighted area is why the courts are needed for their interpretation that should then be practiced and enforced by others...to continue the push for the self evident equality created in all, despite the politicians, the rulers, and the other robbers.

That is not activism, that is literal interpretation. We are not interested in incorrect visions of the word equality.
It doesn't happen easily nor perfectly, but the lurching toward the original words should not be interrupted.
Speyside Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 13,106
Jefferson was talking about THE ideal that should always be our goal. His brilliance is still self evident. His letters about the separation of church and state are a fascinating read.
Smooth light Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
Read them; separation goes both ways, Church does not dictate to the States and the States do not dictate to the Church,neither of them control or dictates to the other.

LIBERTY is not justification for intolerance or limit, someone else's, FREEDOM.

Example; internet social media.
rfenst Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,289
RayR wrote:
The Declaration of Independence didn't proclaim the 13 colonies secession from England was forming a "new nation".
They colonies joined together to proclaim independence from the centralized militaristic mercantilist empire of King George and listed the reasons why, his "history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States". The 13 colonies were essentially self governing entities before and reasonable content with the arrangement.
Hardly anybody was interested in sacrificing their sovereignty as free independent States to form another centralized State like the the State of Great Britain. I say hardly because there were always nefarious characters like Alexander Hamilton and his nationalist ilk that had other ideas.
The beginning of the last paragraph, "We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America" tells the story right there, notice "united" was not capitalized by Jefferson. No new nation called the United States of America was envisioned but a republic of free independent States was. In the 1783 Treaty of Paris, Britain acknowledged that each former colony were now free, sovereign, and independent states.
Not exactly what we have now with this Leviathan federal government ruling over everything from sea to shining sea and beyond is it?


"that all men are created equal" Sounds great on paper. Of course men are created equal more or less when they are born, some are gifted, some not so much and some not at all. Every form of government, every politician talks about and promises equality, but what that usually means is the rulers will tell you what their idea of equality is and too bad if you don't consent to their vision. It usually means there will be a robbery in progress, some people will be less equal than others by force and a bloody mess.
Jefferson wasn't talking about some Utopian fantasy of equality or enforced equality by some government edict, he was talking about an ideal, those "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you are looking for me (and probably others) to read and comment on what you write, please start using paragraphs. Just sayin'.
gummy jones Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 07-06-2015
Posts: 7,969
Speyside wrote:
Jefferson was talking about THE ideal that should always be our goal. His brilliance is still self evident. His letters about the separation of church and state are a fascinating read.


most people know nothing of the actual context or intent

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

was a letter to reassure them the govt wouldnt create a national religion and enforce it upon them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists_in_the_history_of_separation_of_church_and_state
Smooth light Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
No bloviating would help too.
RayR Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,884
frankj1 wrote:
Don't be offended if I ignore the peripheral deflection and unnecessary lecture, but the highlighted area is why the courts are needed for their interpretation that should then be practiced and enforced by others...to continue the push for the self evident equality created in all, despite the politicians, the rulers, and the other robbers.

That is not activism, that is literal interpretation. We are not interested in incorrect visions of the word equality.
It doesn't happen easily nor perfectly, but the lurching toward the original words should not be interrupted.


Isn't your faith in the courts as interpreters and final arbiters of constitutionality a bit concerning? Are they to be treated as Gods and not flawed men and woman?
The Supreme Court itself is a branch of the federal government, do you really expect the robed ones to be trusted as nonpartisan impartial arbiters? Do you really expect the majority opinion to be trusted to condemn every federal law that is unconstitutional or to be impartial in disputes between the federal government an the states? (Doesn't happen often as majority opinion is usually a rubber stamp for the misdeeds of the other federal branches). Do you call that "not activism"?

Jefferson warned that if the federal government had the exclusive right to judge the extent of its powers, it would continue to grow regardless of elections, separation of powers or constitutional limits on government power. Spot on Jeff, we can see by the sorry conditions of the Titanic today that no one heeded your warning.
Jefferson said "To consider Judges of the Superior Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of oligarchy"

In Jefferson's day before he was elected President, the Federalists were in power and the Adams administration signed into law the unconstitutional draconian Alien and Sedition Acts. The Supreme Court was packed with Federalist judges and if a challenge to the laws were brought before the court they would have surely upheld their constitutionality regardless, as did the states that were under control of the Federalist Party. It seems judicial activism was a problem then too. It seems those certain unalienable Rights and the Bill of Rights were being trampled on.

Jefferson's remedy to federal power grabs was state nullification of unconstitutional federal law as spelled out in his draft that would become the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798, likewise James Madison wrote the similar Virginia Resolutions that were also adopted in 1798.
Smooth light Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
There only opinions on the course we should take, not demands .

Did you ever have to make up you're mind, take the one and leave the other behind.

🍎vs🍊
frankj1 Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,221
not going to comment on the extraneous chapters you continue to toss in...
other than that Jefferson was no more perfect than the justices over the decades that you disparage as (in short) having human traits.
I mean, he owned human beings. He fathered other human beings with some of his human property.
He did not acknowledge many if any at all as legitimate heirs.

Nope, I don't ignore the great feats we attribute to him, but I also have more respect than you for the transparent, on the record, book of actions taken by each judge.

Earlier I pointed out some under reported opinions Ben Franklin had before signing and getting other hold outs to sign as well...for reasons that showed the wisdom of understanding and disagreeing with political party dogma as in our current Party over Country situation. His original hesitation was born of the lack of perfection, that is until he accepted that imperfection is inevitable.

I see you tear down stuff, should I assume you wish for a centralized committee or even an individual assume ultimate power?
Smooth light Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 06-26-2020
Posts: 3,598
What side of the fence you on and your view of the other side. What I want and how to get it.

Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>