Sotomayor accuses Supreme Court of bias in favor of Trump administration

No, a govt closer to the people is better and represents the residents of that state.

Democrats not only shoved RvW down the nations throat-they went on to get state funding as well.

Its a ruling who's time has passed.

Sadly, the democrat party does not adhere to "one precise national answer" when it comes to sanctuary cities.

 

I would submit that it is indeed how Supreme Court Justices have interpreted their own positions since the beginning. Throughout American history there has been an ongoing competition between judges & justices who are "originalists" and those who believe the Constitution, as a "living document," must be open to interpretation as society changes over time. Since nothing in life is unchanging for long, any attempt to keep the Constitution frozen in time will result in that Constitution gradually becoming irrelevant & disconnected from society. Life is change. The only constant in life is change. To avoid that change within a Constitution accepted as the top law of the land, is to invite failure. The Constitution must always be interpreted & reinterpreted as society changes over time. That can & has been done while preserving the basic human rights designated by the original Bill of Rights. In fact, over time, those rights have been expanded by new interpretations of the Constitution. That malleability is a great strength that keeps the Constitution relevant & powerful.

 

Its not malleable.

 

In other words unelected activists judges creating the laws of our land as opposed to allowing the legislative branch to create our laws as was intended. You do know you've been going back and forth taking both sides of this issue as circumstances change.

 

I don't share your concerns about the courts intruding into the legislative branch's power to create laws. The courts themselves have been highly resistant to that path, & often refused to make a ruling in a case before passing it back to the legislature or Congress to clarify or change it.

I don't know how you conclude I'm taking both sides on this issue. Please explain.

 

When it become immaleable, it dies & ceases to matter.

 

Its a strict code that is the supreme law of the land.

It can be amended-but that requires widespread approval.

 

Any law must be flexible enough to be applied to varying situations. If laws are interpreted too rigidly, it leads to unfair rulings &/or sentences.

 

Same applies with too losely.

But when it comes to the supreme laws of the land-rigidity is where its at.

Decades of Conservative SCOTUS is to come.

 

After this next election the left will wander in the political wilderness for a generation.

 

When I said "And their decisions should be based upon the Constitution and the laws of our land and not on the political and social whims of an individual judge." you said "agreed." And then when you find out that Sotomayor doesn't adhere to our constitution when she makes her decisions but goes by her own political and social views then you tossed the originalist position out the window.

 

In my view, those conservative rulings will retard our country social, scientifically, & economically. Conservative judges will ensure the continuation of the same selfish, self--serving capitalist disparity of wealth we find ourselves in now. That's no answer for America's future.

 

You may be right, but I doubt you will be any happier with that result than me.

 

No judge can make any ruling based on any existing law without placing some kind of personal interpretation on that law, its intent, its purpose, &how courts have interpreted it in former cases. Since every law is broadened in its application over time, to cover issues that didn't exist when the original law was written, interpretation is necessary. As time passes, trying to get back to the "originalist" version becomes incrasingly difficult, & eventually impossible. Conservative judges & justices work precisely the same way.

 

Its not about your view or lets be honest the marxists view of America.

Clearly our "original recipe" clears a path to prosperity and individual freedoms.

 

First, it's both unfair & inaccurate to automatically connect modern Democratic Socialists with Marxism. There's a huge difference. I am comfortable with the label "Democratic Socialist," but quite uncomfortable with Marxism. Our "original recipe" has led us to the extreme disparity of wealth now existing here in America. Capitalism has some solid positive assets, but distribution of wealth isn't one of them. Socialism has strong assets in the area of distribution of wealth, but is weaker in other important areas. Combining the strengths of each & working them together seems to me to be the best solution for America now. I hope the voters agree.

 

Its the goals that matter not what you call it or what you are "comfortable" with...

DSA are Marxists just understand that.

 

Yeah it did a great job of redistributing it in Venezuela

 

I disagree. Democratic Socialists want to take the best ideas from both capitalism & socialism & use them together, while always respecting & protecting individual rights & the democratic process. Marxists demean capitalism, disrespect individual rights & reject democracy. How you conclude they are somehow connected is a mystery to me.

 

Venezuela is a good example for how completely misunderstood the differences between socialism & communism are globally. During the Cold War, both sides misrepresented socialism in their propaganda. The Soviets, who were communists, knew socialism was a more fair system than theirs, so they tried to create a positive link between it & themselves by calling themselves "Socialist Republics." But in reality they never were. America abused the word "socialist" too, by pretending & propagandizing it as equivalent to, or a stepping stone toward eventual communism. That was just as false--& still is. Communism is the antithesis of capitalism. Communism doesn't actually allow capitalism to exist in a communist state. Socialism not only allows capitalism, but nurtures it in every way possible as the economic basis of its system. Socialism is friendly with capitalism, & works with it in partnership. The Cold War left millions of people confused & misled regarding these important distinctions. Bernie Sanders is paying a price in his campaign today due to these falsehoods. Liberals pay the same price every time they try to promote any partnership between American capitalism & Democratic Socialism--all because of the past success of false propaganda.

 

Communism is the theory of no State....socialism is when the State runs the means of production....Venezula, and the USSR both were socialist: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Capitalism is when individuals have the right to ownership of production.

 

1. Communism in practice became the system under which the state owned & controlled everything.
2. In practice, your definition of "socialism" actually became what we now call "communism." In reality, communism (not socialism) became the system that ran the means of production & dictated what would be available for consumers & what price they would have to pay. Just because the Soviets called themselves "Socialist Republics" doesn't mean they actually were. That was propaganda. Venezuela did the same, but their leaders actually copied the Cuban communist system for Venezuela, which led to its failure as a state. Again, it called itself "socialist," but was actually communist. I know of no actual nation that calls itself "socialist" today, that actually does control the means of production. They do regulate it, but not control it completely as conservatives would have us believe. Private companies & corporations both exist in good health in today's socialist countries. And, they make lots of money. Difference is, they are required to allow workers a significant say in the running of the company, & they are taxed higher than companies here in the U.S. But those tax monies pay for healthcare for all, baby sitting facilities for all single parents, paid vacations for every worker, a life-time retirement fund for every worker, & free to cheap access to higher education for everyone who desires it. For me, that's good governance.
3. Today's successful socialist countries work with capitalism for the benefit of all their citizens.

 

No place has ever become communist because we never get past socialism.

why? Because of human nature.

 

You are walking and talking like a duck. Using the terminology, and reflecting the dogma.

"Wealth disparity" is higher in marxist nations, and leftist controlled states in the US.

There isn't a "strength' in marxism-sprinkling that fail on a capitalist system is antithetical to the principles of the US.

 

To undermine her theory a bit or a response to it the court has agreed to hear the ACA challenge in October. They won’t have a ruling but this is going to be a general election news item.

Preexisting conditions protection and healthcare in general with the administration supporting a case to take both away from millions.