Do You Really Want Me to Rule the Country?

Helluva pick Mr. President, if he means what he says.

What they didn’t have in mind, “was nine old people in Washington sitting in robes telling everybody else how to live.”

This guy may get it.

My business is to make sure that your rights – all of them – are enforced."


Well stated, and no, I don’t want 9 unelected old men telling everyone how to live.

I look forward to him explaining why Transgender people qualify under Title 3.

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.

Or is Goesuch signaling the president that nominated him that he will not decide cases based on partisan political ideology. Just a thought.

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 founders were smart enough to allow only one half of one branch to be elected by the People. Thank god SCOTUS judges are not.

1 Like

Unfortunately they forgot to put adequate controls on the judiciary which has elevated itself over the other two.

Yet some do exactly that, particularly the Obama appointees and the gargoyle.

What controls could/should they have placed?

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

What does “extra constitutional” mean?

Define your terms.

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.”

Odd that a law student should have to ask.


[ ek-struh-kon-sti-too-shuh-nl, ‐tyoo- ]SHOW IPA



not authorized by or based on a constitution; beyond the provisions of a constitution.

I’m aware of what the dictionary says. I’m asking you what you define as “extraconstitutional”.

Did you just Google the phrase until you found something academic-looking with it in the title?


I’m not arguing with the definition.

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.

No, I provided you two definitions. Do you have a better one?