Of course it does. It notes the fact that the question hasn’t been asked for years but for some strange and very explicable reason, it’s import seems to be come to the forefront now. During the hearings for a democrat nominee. If it weren’t so obvious, i would wonder why.
So again for the cheap seats, when was the last time the question was asked and of whom.
No. Your question has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Additionally, your above response indicates why you asked your question. instead of addressing whether or not my question is legitimate, you show your political partisan agenda by suggesting the question is only asked now because a democrat is a nominee, and you ignore whether or not the question ought to be asked and answered by any Supreme Court nominee.
If you are not interested in the substance of the thread, why not go elsewhere?
JWK
I want to know which of the last nominees was asked the question. This is i believe my 1843778th time asking it
If you really want an answer to your question, do the research. I am uninterested in answering your question. Instead, I am interested in why every Supreme Court nominee is not asked how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers?
Are you suggesting my question is not a legitimate question, and it should not be asked of every Supreme Court nominee?
JWK
You just answered my question. Thank you. I agree. I disagree whether the answer should disqualify the nominee
I have no idea what you are talking about since you quoted me out of context. It seems quite clear you are not here for a productive discussion concerning a fundamental question, the question being . . . how does one legitimately determine when an act violates a provision of our federal Constitution, or its constitutionally delegated powers?
Once again I ask you, are you suggesting my question is not a legitimate question, and it should not be asked of every Supreme Court nominee?
JWK
To be fair, he dings the R leadership despite the fact the D’s chaired the hearing. And I think he has a point: instead of racist babies and definitions of “woman”, they could have drilled down on his questions.
What is “legitimate”?
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.
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.
So, now you agree the Republican Leadership was negligent during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings?
JWK
Agreed in my first post in the thread.
