And yet, many will get upset because of this line in the post above:
Yeah. Agree with all this.
I don't think voting for Trump is something that evil or despicable.
Odd. A bunch of Democrats prefer Democrats and demonize Republicans.Guys who voted this vile, morally corrupt individual for President don't need additional demonizing.
Is he a "vile, morally corrupt individual"? sure. However, being vile and morally corrupt and being the best choice on election day aren't mutually exclusive things. Hillary was no angel herself and more importantly, whichever party won was going to have the opportunity to put 1-3 justices on the supreme court for the next 30+ years.
That's huge. Can't be denied. Now, Nick has rightfully pointed out that should RBG need to be replaced Trump could install another conservative making the court overwhelmingly conservative (6-3). This isn't good. However, the alternative would have been the other way around.
Should Hillary have nominated Garland then replaced Kennedy with a liberal, the court would swing 6-3 in the other direction. It was a real possibility that by 2020 the supreme court was an activist progressive court. That's a conservatives nightmare. So I'll grit my teeth and vote for Trump. People can call me racist or imply I'm a horrible person for it, but I think there are a lot of Bernie Bros who wish they'd shown out for Hillary today because the supreme court is really really important.
All the talk about conservative justices vs. liberal justices vs. moderate justices is kind of ... I don't know the right word for it ... ironic? silly?
What I mean is that there are, obviously, multiple ways of viewing/interpreting the Constitution, but I don't think there should be so many viewpoints on it.
Whatever the issue under consideration, it's either constitutional or it's not—yet it could be ruled constitutional by one version of the Supreme Court, then later on ruled unconstitutional by another edition of the Supreme Court, and that doesn't make sense to me.
It shouldn't be about "liberal vs. conservative vs. moderate"; it shouldn't be about a certain social ideology winning the day; it should be about what that document says (or doesn't say).
And I really do believe that's how the Founders intended it to be, and that this idea was a driving force behind the Tenth Amendment—if it ain't in the Constitution, it falls to each state to decide for itself.
Except that for well over a century now, a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.
a battle for the nation's soul has been waged, largely predicated on finding loopholes/soft spots/"language open to 'interpretation'" in the Constitution and using that to conduct social engineering experiments.[/b]
The Constitution was written for the rights of all Americans and each American should be free to live their own lifestyle. Their lifestyle is just that, a choice they made on how to live their lives in America.
Nick, are you saying that sexual orientation/behavior is a choice?
Any lifestyle that is that illegal.
That includes gays, lesbians, transgenders and transsexuals. Such things are not illegal social experiments. If you're intimating thst they are, thats just wrong.
This is not the topic I had in mind when I wrote what I wrote, but I would include it. And please correct me if I'm misreading you, but your response to me seems to fit exactly what I'm talking about. Let me explain.
There's a difference between questions of legality and questions of constitutionality. The constitution, from my perspective, was intended to be a basic framework for how our government is structured and an outline of our basic political freedoms in relation to that government. To wit: We have the right to speak out against our government, and we have the right to pursue whatever system of religious belief we want, as opposed to being forced by the government to follow a given belief system.
For a long time now, however—and particularly over the last 50-75 years—the Constitution, via the Supreme Court, has instead become more of a bastion for those who are unhappy that certain of their preferences have been outlawed (or at least limited) by the expressed will of the people—so they run to the judiciary to have their preferences ruled not only legal, but constitutional
, by which I mean bedrock political freedom on which this country was built and which the constitution clearly addresses and which cannot in any way be curtailed
Outside of the Tenth Amendment, however, the Constitution was not intended to (and does not) address questions of marriage, sexuality, human reproduction, or the like; these things have nothing to do with the structure of our government and our individual political rights in relation to that government. These are issues that should be left to the states, under the Tenth Amendment.
And this relates to what I wrote in my earlier post: Under the current paradigm, in which things shift depending on how many liberals/conservatives/moderates are on the Supreme Court, something could be constitutional one year and be unconstitutional 5, 10, 30 years later, and that doesn't compute for me. Something could logically be legal
at one point and illegal
at another point, based on the shifting will of the people, but any given thing (logically) has to be constitutional or
unconstitutional, period (unless, of course, an amendment is added to the Constitution, which is the only way that something is supposed to be able to shift from constitutional to unconstitutional, or vice versa).
I think what we've witnessed since about the mid-20th century is the emergence of a tactic whereby some people who desire to see certain radical social change—but are unable, for whatever reason, to accomplish it through traditional means (such as legislation, or perhaps by persuading the majority toward their viewpoint)—have exploited certain parts of the Constitution and enlisted the aid of judges/justices who are sympathetic to their desires for certain social change.
In reality, the Constitution is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a treatise on social mores, which, as we all know, can and do shift, sometimes quickly and sometimes drastically. It was meant to be a mostly unchanging framework for how our government operates in relation to the people; under this paradigm, if one state wants to allow same-sex marriage, or That Thing Which Shall Not be Named on CB, it should be able to, according to the Constitution; likewise, if another state wants to ban either of those things, it should be able to, according to the Constitution.