You are right. I am just questioning the timing of his disagreement with r leadership
No it is a legitimate question. Very much so indeed. I am suggesting that delegation by the executive and the legislative branch is as old as article three courts.
Your position of “well unless it’s specifically stated in the constitution it’s outside of the power of the federal government” has been dead for decades. Your side lost and instead of trying to fight against the tide of delegated powers the gop has embraced the loss. with fervor.
Yeah. I am just trying to engage beyond “where we’re you last time?”
During the past forty years of Supreme Court nominee hearings I have never heard any member of the Senate ask a nominee, how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers? In fact, I cannot even recall any of our mainstream media “journalists” discuss that topic, nor any of our “conservative” media personalities, and that seems very suspicious considering every Supreme Court Justice should be able to explain how one goes about determining when our federal constitution has been violated, or its defined and limited powers been breached.
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to limit and control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
1 Like
A method used to determine the true meaning of our Constitution as it was understood by those who framed it and the people who adopted it.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records that give context to its text, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
I was always on the side of supporting and defending the meaning of our Constitution as it was understood by those who framed it, and the people who adopted it, e.g.,see:
JWK
Your question is designed to derail the subject of the thread, a nonpartisan subject which boils down to . . . . . . how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
It doesn’t. The lack of the question being presented prevents them from legitimately knowing it. They don’t care. The issue is deader than right to privacy in the constitution.
Still intent on derailing the subject I see. And you never answered the question . . . . . . how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers?
JWK
“On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”–Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
You are skimming my posts. I specifically said that without asking the question they cannot legitimately assess. May be you will read past the first sentence of my post this time.
You are also confusing topic of the thread with only wanting the thread to be a way for you to copy and paste the same thing over and over again.
1 Like
So, now you agree the Republican Leadership was negligent during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings?
JWK
Agreed in my first post in the thread.
OK. So now, how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers? And shouldn’t a Supreme Court nominee be able to answer that question? Is it not pertinent to a Supreme Court Justices’ job?
JWK
1 Like
.
I wonder how many more turncoat “Republican” Senators, other than Collins, will give a thumbs up to this BLM socialist revolutionary, to be our next Supreme Court Justice.
JWK
Why have a written constitution approved by the people if those who it is designed to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?
See:
April 4, 2022
"No Republicans on the committee are expected to vote to advance Jackson’s nomination, writing in a statement during her confirmation hearings that Jackson’s record “shows regular misuse of judicial authority to impose liberal preferences instead of what the law demands.”
.
And yet, to the best of my knowledge, not one Republican member on the committee questioned Jackson how one goes about determining the true meaning of our Constitution’s passages.
Is determining what our Constitution means not one of the most fundamental tasks of a Supreme Court Justice? Why, then, is there a continual failure of S.C. nomination committees to delve into this most important line of questioning?
JWK
“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”___ Justice Story
I don’t understand the angst here.
She will be confirmed and she won’t be worse than RBG.
Camp,
It’s more about a troubling and confirmed predictable disappointment! Not one of the 11 “Republican” members on the hearing’s committee questioned nominee Jackson how one goes about to legitimately determine when a provision of our federal constitution is violated, or its defined and limited grants of power are breached.
Of course, as I expected, the 11 Republicans were exceeding adept in arousing emotional fervor and passion by attacking some of Jackson’s past history. But all 22 committee members were somehow in full harmony in avoiding any discussion on some of the most fundamental rules of constitutional construction and questioning Jackson how, does one legitimately determine the true meaning of our Constitution’s provisions and written protections therein.
Is it not a fundamental task of a Supreme Court Justice’s job to determine the true meaning of our Constitution’s provisions?
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Everything you state is 100 percent correct.
They forced the retirement.
I think the silver lining here is she is so mediocre intellectually that she will be an ineffective radical.
There are other battles to fight.
We got a real talent with Barrett.
Yeah, not like he said a wise Latina would always come to a better decision than a white male. He should have just said that so he could win confirmation.
Yes, but pray for Thomas’s health …
2 Likes
