5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices uphold the 1st Amendment
hotair.com/archives/2014/04/02…
While this ruling is great news, I'm very concerned about how divided the court was over the question of whether or not to actually uphold the plain text of the Constitution. All four of the Democrat-appointed justices chose the Democrat Party agenda over legal correctness, judicial integrity, and personal liberty.
Is there some means by which we can purge the court of Democratic politicians and replace them with real justices? If, under current law, they're there for life, is there some way we could implement a system of judicial impeachment without letting the Democrats corrupt that process as well?
While this ruling is great news, I'm very concerned about how divided the court was over the question of whether or not to actually uphold the plain text of the Constitution. All four of the Democrat-appointed justices chose the Democrat Party agenda over legal correctness, judicial integrity, and personal liberty.
Is there some means by which we can purge the court of Democratic politicians and replace them with real justices? If, under current law, they're there for life, is there some way we could implement a system of judicial impeachment without letting the Democrats corrupt that process as well?
Comments224
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
Do you know who else wanted to purge the Supreme Court of everyone who didn't agree with him?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
I'm sure the two of you would be great friends.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
I'm sure the two of you would be great friends.
Roosevelt was trying to pack the court with politicians. I'm trying to purge the court of politicians.
And who would you have replace them? Certainly not people you disagree with, right?
I would replace the politicians in the court with justices. You know, people who actually care what the Constitution says.
That's subjective; I could easily say that about the conservative members of the court. If you ask me, this vote is flat-out admitting that people can buy seats in office; that was true before this ruling, but now it's official. Now, billionaires like the Koch Brothers can just override the minority opinion of any place they can pour enough money into; if you don't have enough money, then I guess you don't have as much free speech as the ones that do have money. That's my opinion, and that was roughly the minority opinion expressed by the court.
I'm sure that FDR thought that he was packing the court with people who "actually" cared about what the Constitution said, as long as it was his interpretation. You're no different.
I'm sure that FDR thought that he was packing the court with people who "actually" cared about what the Constitution said, as long as it was his interpretation. You're no different.
And this vote is flat-out consistent with the Constitution, whether or not you agree with the policy implications. That's what I mean by "justices instead of politicians." The 4 Democrat-appointed judges vote the way their politics lean, not the way the Constitution directs them. The Republican-appointed judges usually hew towards the original meaning of the Constitution, rather than trying to rewrite it from the bench.
To illustrate this, Antonin Scalia wrote a book about how to interpret the Constitution in the context of original text and case histories: www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Int…
...And Stephen Breyer wrote a book about how to actively rewrite the Constitution from the bench, because that era is "dead and gone": www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty-…
This isn't an equal-offender sort of thing. The Democrat-appointed justices have openly abdicated their duty to the Constitution, while the Republican-appointed ones have not. FDR believed in the superiority of simple-majority Congressional action over the parts of the Constitution that actually protect the people's rights from the government. He rewrote the Commerce Clause in his own mind to refer to "all commerce," rather than "commerce between the states." He was responsible for this dangerous trend towards judicial activism.
To illustrate this, Antonin Scalia wrote a book about how to interpret the Constitution in the context of original text and case histories: www.amazon.com/Reading-Law-Int…
...And Stephen Breyer wrote a book about how to actively rewrite the Constitution from the bench, because that era is "dead and gone": www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty-…
This isn't an equal-offender sort of thing. The Democrat-appointed justices have openly abdicated their duty to the Constitution, while the Republican-appointed ones have not. FDR believed in the superiority of simple-majority Congressional action over the parts of the Constitution that actually protect the people's rights from the government. He rewrote the Commerce Clause in his own mind to refer to "all commerce," rather than "commerce between the states." He was responsible for this dangerous trend towards judicial activism.
Very one sided, I understand that democrats are not saints, but republicans are no better. Purging the court, as you said, would create an imbalance and the court would cease to be just as this is NOT a totally republican nation
Is there anybody here who has already argued against corporate free speech, who would then support unlimited individual speech? Should the Koch brothers be permitted to buy as much air time to express support or disapproval of political figures as they would like, should they use their own money?
Because honestly, from my arguments with you in the past, I doubt any of you who are here arguing against corporations having free speech rights support free speech for individuals, either. "Free speech," to you, means pornography can't be regulated - but political activism is too important -not- to be.
Because honestly, from my arguments with you in the past, I doubt any of you who are here arguing against corporations having free speech rights support free speech for individuals, either. "Free speech," to you, means pornography can't be regulated - but political activism is too important -not- to be.
The problem is you equate what is basically legalized bribery to free speech.
No. The problem is you have no problem when the likes of Soros, Buffet, Turner, et al do the same in support of your team.
And which team would that be?
Bribery is giving money to somebody else in a position of power in exchange for some use of that power. Advocacy can include giving or spending money to or on the part of an individual whose policies you support. You treat all monetary gifts as the former, and apparently do not acknowledge the legitimacy of the latter.
Because the latter is not what is happening in Crony America.
Your response, predicted in the very thing you are responding to: "You treat all monetary gifts as the former."
Ok. It's still true.
Just pour lots and lots and lots and lots of money into our democracy, there won't be any side-effects or corruption
There's already lots and lots of money in our democracy. Lately, the most extreme corruption has been in the White House, where they're defending campaign contribution caps.
I think we should take steps to limit that, not increase it
You're missing the point: Why exactly would the corrupt assholes be in favor of campaign contribution caps?
Answer: Because the corrupt assholes control the bully pulpit, and less money in politics means there's fewer people that can call them on their corrupt bullshit.
Answer: Because the corrupt assholes control the bully pulpit, and less money in politics means there's fewer people that can call them on their corrupt bullshit.
Or maybe they're concerned about the billions corrupting our democracy?
Keep in mind, for every guy who buys a result you like, someone else is buying one you don't. Liberals and liberal companies are just as guilty.
Keep in mind, for every guy who buys a result you like, someone else is buying one you don't. Liberals and liberal companies are just as guilty.
They ARE the biggest source of corruption in our democracy. The only reason the Democrats are opposed to outside money is because it might challenge the fiefdom they control.
lol both sides are against caps, the dems put up a weak fight against it because thats the role they have to play. dems (faux liberals) are just slightly less crony capitalist than their republican (faux conservatives) cousins. they are all whores and will continue to be such, and at an even greater rate now. ugh its so sad to see people apologize for their slave masters.
I don't care if they're 50 or 51% of the problem it all needs shut down.
View all replies
Why are there so many trolls on the politics portion of the Forums on this website?