And if they all do that…the system works. They aren’t there to protect the President, the aren’t there to side with their party blindly. They are there to determine if rights are violated as laid out in the constitution. Good on him! Hope they all follow that lead.
The issue is a judge by definition of their job is very much going to be political and picking sides because normal both sides view their rights are being infringed, there are no win-win situation not everyone can get what they want.
look at gay marriage one side say it infringes on their 1st, the other side banning it infringes on their 14th.
I don’t want anyone “ruling this country” which is why I think Gorsuch is a fine pick and will be changing this country back towards the Constitutional Republic it was intended to be for decades.
The most obvious is that they should not have the power to make rulings that are extra constitutional. That is how they elevated themselves above the other two branches.
If there is not a clear constitutional correlation between the case and constitution they should not be allowed to dream up out of whole cloth such an association to justify a ruling.
If it isn’t there, it isn’t there and if that means we need an amendment that is the only constitutional remedy
Yea, I get it. You think some of the rulings are “extra constitutional,” whatever that means. I’m asking, on a practical level, how you think this should be, or could have been, “controlled.”
The biggest example would be the 14th Amendment being extended to cover far beyond what was originally intended to cover, particularly in granting rights to children born of illegal aliens. The legislative intent was clear, it never even mentions children of illegals.
Further examples would be extending eminent domain to things like cities condemning properties and allowing developers to claim ED solely for the purpose of raising tax revenues.