What is the fight over appointing a Supreme Court Justice really about?

[mbus]

@johnwk2

.
From where I stand, I see the forces of good and evil in a raging confrontation and our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” hanging in the balance.

Is this not what the fight is really about with regard to nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices?

On one hand we have Justices who actually work to support and defend the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent, as expressed during its framing and ratification process, which gives context to its text, and, on the other hand, we have Justices who use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as “the rule of law” regardless of the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

On the one hand we have a system of government controlled and regulated by a written constitution which the people have agreed to, and may be altered only be its Amendment Process, which requires the people’s consent as prescribed therein. On the other hand the constitution becomes a meaningless document, perverted by appointed figure heads to accomplish nefarious goals which the people, through their Constitution, have forbidden.

So, when all is said and done, is this fight not about preserving and protecting our written Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, and defending it against those who would use their office of public trust to impose their personal whims and fancies as “the rule of law”?

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 and gives 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.

From a purely strategic POV, with the election in mind, we Dems should quickly and quietly vote Trump’s nominee in. If there is a way to do it without a moment’s television, better still. Don’t want to see overzealous Dem’s rough up a woman on election eve.

These are our just deserts; what we get for putting up mediocre candidates.

[DougBH]

Murkowski now says she may vote for Trump’s nominee.
Guess that leaves Collins.

[johnwk2]

@Bodecea

Time to pass laws controlling men’s bodies.

More to the point is, we need judges and Justices who will abide by the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as stated during the Constitution’s framing and ratification debates, which gives context to its text. Had our Constitution been adhered to by our Supreme Court, the question of abortion would have remained within the purview of each particular state.

JWK

BEWARE! The Biden/Harris Administration, in wanting to keep Obamacare, which currently covers less than 9 million ___ many being foreigners/aliens ___ want to also take away the existing private health insurance plans from over 150 million American Citizens, and force them into a Communist/Socialist, Cuban style healthcare system.

[PAmoderate37]

@johnwk2

More to the point is, we need judges and Justices who will abide by the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as stated during the Constitution’s framing and ratification debates, which gives context to its text. Had our Constitution been adhered to by our Supreme Court, the question of abortion would have remained within the purview of each particular state.

NO! We had a war over Country vs States rights and the States lost. We are one country before we are 50 individual states. We don’t live like it’s 1776 with the exception of 26 Amendments, hence a living breathing Constitution.

[zantax]

@PAmoderate37

@johnwk2

More to the point is, we need judges and Justices who will abide by the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as stated during the Constitution’s framing and ratification debates, which gives context to its text. Had our Constitution been adhered to by our Supreme Court, the question of abortion would have remained within the purview of each particular state.

NO! We had a war over Country vs States rights and the States lost. We are one country before we are 50 individual states. We don’t live like it’s 1776 with the exception of 26 Amendments, hence a living breathing Constitution.

The civil war repealed the tenth amendment? News to me.

[highroller]

It wasn’t repealed. The insane interpretation people here have about it ended with the South losing the civil war though, but we are getting people back in office with the same opinions. Hopefully, this time it doesn’t end with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans again.

You never know though.

[zantax]

And by insane you mean, can read.

[johnwk2]

@PAmoderate37

@johnwk2

More to the point is, we need judges and Justices who will abide by the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent as stated during the Constitution’s framing and ratification debates, which gives context to its text. Had our Constitution been adhered to by our Supreme Court, the question of abortion would have remained within the purview of each particular state.

NO! We had a war over Country vs States rights and the States lost. We are one country before we are 50 individual states. We don’t live like it’s 1776 with the exception of 26 Amendments, hence a living breathing Constitution.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think the war was partially fought to end southern slavery. I didn’t know it was fought to end the reserved powers northern states exercised which are summarized as follows:

“ The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

JWK

The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves and put the KKK out of business. ___ Author unknown

[markdido]

Nothing says “fair election” like nullifying the votes of an entire party in a state, depending on how the rest of the country votes.

The Interstate Voting Compact is bull ■■■■■

[johnwk2]

Tell me, why do you think the socialist/communist controlled democrat party leadership is frothing from their mouths and hysterical over President Trump nominating a Justice for the Supreme Court?

What is their big concern about appointing a Supreme Court Justice?

JWK

"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

[SpacemanSpiff]

@DMK

As mentioned by those above, it is about power.

I believe the democrats have turned a corner in that they no longer wish to work with anyone unless it suits and promotes their agenda.

I guess I’ll say it again: If I ever find myself owning a movie theater I’m hiring nothing but conservatives. Best projectionists I’ve ever seen!

[Mountain_Soldier]

@JayJay

No we are talking about turning ordinary politics, with all its faults and foibles, into some titanic moral confrontation…lazy “white hats v black hats” thinking.

Which is why ideologues are a scourge…because ideologues are utterly detached from the reality of how the world actually works.

Biden isn’t an ideologue?

[JayJay]

No he isn’t.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@JayJay

No he isn’t.

I don’t see much conservative in his platform… if any.

[gooddad409]

@Mountain_Soldier

@JayJay

No we are talking about turning ordinary politics, with all its faults and foibles, into some titanic moral confrontation…lazy “white hats v black hats” thinking.

Which is why ideologues are a scourge…because ideologues are utterly detached from the reality of how the world actually works.

Biden isn’t an ideologue?

[JayJay]

@Mountain_Soldier

@JayJay

No he isn’t.

I don’t see much conservative in his platform… if any.

That’s not the definition of ideologue.

[Mountain_Soldier]

@JayJay

@Mountain_Soldier

@JayJay

No he isn’t.

I don’t see much conservative in his platform… if any.

That’s not the definition of ideologue.

I know… just trying to figure out how he wouldn’t be an ideologue as president.

[johnwk2]

@Mountain_Soldier

@JayJay

No we are talking about turning ordinary politics, with all its faults and foibles, into some titanic moral confrontation…lazy “white hats v black hats” thinking.

Which is why ideologues are a scourge…because ideologues are utterly detached from the reality of how the world actually works.

Biden isn’t an ideologue?

I still would like to know why the communist/socialist controlled Democrat Party Leadership is all bent out of shape over President Trump nominating a Justice for the Supreme Court.

I think I know the answer but prefer to hear the opinions of others.

JWK

Our country is infested with a Fifth Column movement at MSNBC, NEW YORK TIMES, CNN, WASHINGTON POST, ATLANTIC MAGAZINE, New York Daily News, Time, ETC., and their countless Yellow Journalists, who work hand in hand with the Democrat Party socialist/communist leadership to plunder, paralyze and destroy our free market, free enterprise system.