Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Justice Scalia dies

Feb 13, 2016 4:44PM PST

No doubt a political battle looms.

Antonin Scalia dead at 79

Thank you for your service to the court and defense of the constitution, Mr. Scalia.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Bad news
Feb 13, 2016 6:29PM PST

Now Obama gets a chance to fix the court as Liberal. Hopefully the Republicans in there keeps that from happening.

- Collapse -
There should be political neutrality in the SCOTUS
Feb 14, 2016 1:48AM PST

Regardless of for whom or what party they choose to vote, they should all defend the constitution as written and not as they would have written it...or so I'd think.

- Collapse -
Even in Lincoln's day
Feb 14, 2016 5:19AM PST

It became political. That's why we need votes of confidence every so often, even if only every 6-10 years.

- Collapse -
RE:It became political
Feb 15, 2016 4:54AM PST
It became political. That's why we need votes of confidence

And the people that "vote" wouldn't "vote" based on their political beliefs?

Obama hasn't even mentioned who he MIGHT pick (IF he picks anyone)...and already the battle lines are being drawn based on political beliefs.

IF you're a Liberal, You're A Democrat?
IF you're a Conservative, You're a Republican?
- Collapse -
that pretty much says it
Feb 15, 2016 10:25AM PST

Since it's become political, might as well give the people more direct power over it. It's not right that 9 people should over rule 450 representatives and 100 senators duly elected by "We the people".

- Collapse -
RE;might as well give the people more direct power over it.
Feb 15, 2016 10:53AM PST

Then since "individual voters' will vote along "party lines" why not let the leader of the party in power. "The President" select the Supreme Court justices?

Eliminate the cost and inconvenience of yet another opportunity for displays of animosity.

- Collapse -
Not a problem if....
Feb 15, 2016 3:12PM PST

....there was a way to later remove them if we the people wanted to. Right now they have to become a criminal, and wrongly interpreting, deliberately twisting, the constitution doesn't seem to qualify for that.

- Collapse -
RE: wrongly interpreting, deliberately twisting,
Feb 15, 2016 7:16PM PST
wrongly interpreting, deliberately twisting, the constitution doesn't seem to qualify for that.

So, for years they've been using only people that have a law degree, and lots of experience "interpreting documents", and these people are now being judged by people with no where near the experience these jurists have, IF they have any experience in that field at all.
- Collapse -
ever hear of SCOTUS reversing itself?
Feb 16, 2016 3:59AM PST

Unless you've been living under a rock, you have. Which interpretation was correct? The earlier one, closer to the source of law, or the later one, further removed from that time? They are NOT infallible.

- Collapse -
RE:ever hear of SCOTUS reversing itself?
Feb 16, 2016 4:29AM PST

Sure....

They are NOT infallible.

Is anyone infallible? Are you applying?

Let's have an election...replace one infallible group with another infallible group?

- Collapse -
Common sense maybe...but I'd not want to give enough
Feb 15, 2016 5:19PM PST

power to the people through their political representatives that they could change the way the constitution is interpreted. All that was written was written for a purpose based on the thinking of those times. We get in trouble when we try to second guess their thinking by applying our own.

- Collapse -
Screw That !
Feb 15, 2016 5:52PM PST

Are we a bunch of morons?
All of this was written in the 1700/1800 's . But we are all educated now !
Who do we need now as a mouthpiece to speak for us ?
While I am certain that I can't speak for everyone,
I am certain that I can speak for myself.
I would like to have the time to check out each candidate and vote for him/her on their own merit .
Regarding this issue, I need no representative.
I also need no Canadian influence.
Stay home ....

- Collapse -
Me thinks you have no idea what I said or meant
Feb 16, 2016 2:01AM PST

What I am saying is that votes by average citizens shouldn't determine how the constitution should be interpreted. Do you have a problem with that? Do you think average citizens actually have or been properly taught the reasoning behind what went into the original documents? Do you think the citizens of that day were having the same experiences we are having today? Some do think our constitution should be a living and breathing reflection of current attitudes but I question where those attitudes come from. You have our First Lady who has claimed Beyonce is a role model for the Obama daughters and then you watch her writhe in front of millions during the Super Bowl halftime show. Does that represent today's accepted values and would you be happy with allowing those who cheer such people make law? Not me. "Are we a bunch of morons?"...some...yes.

- Collapse -
whoever said that?
Feb 16, 2016 4:01AM PST

Nobody suggested each ruling should be put up for a vote by the general public.

- Collapse -
Well...excuse me if I misinterpreted
Feb 16, 2016 6:42AM PST

this from one of your posts.

"Since it's become political, might as well give the people more direct power over it."

in this context

"It's not right that 9 people should over rule 450 representatives and 100 senators duly elected by "We the people"."

To me, this suggests you'd allow the general population to overrule the nine judges. As for myself, I'll respect that they've been chosen for knowledge that the general population doesn't have. That's what "experts" are for. If someone's grandmother says a child has as simple cold that will go away but the doctor says that blood tests show possible leukemia, whose diagnosis should we go with?

- Collapse -
I mention elected representatives
Feb 16, 2016 2:40PM PST

which far outweigh the court, and you come up with general elections on decisions? I'm talking about Congress having votes on rulings such as if it is "precedent worthy" or not. Or Congress accepting the ruling as "in this case only" but objected to it as a precedent to be followed.

- Collapse -
What I was getting at is
Feb 16, 2016 2:59PM PST

that I don't trust the powers that be to make all decisions for us anymore.
I do believe that our government does think that we are all morons and couldn't possibly choose a Supreme Court Justice by voting in who we the people trust and not have someone appointed by POTUS just because that appointee would promote his causes or way of thinking.

I think we should vote on this. If that makes me a moron , so be it.

- Collapse -
I thought that having the president put forth
Feb 16, 2016 5:21PM PST

candidates for vetting was well reasoned in that it's the head of the "Executive" branch...the branch responsible to see that the constitution is upheld and that federal laws are enforced. That's Obama's job right now. Though it seems to frustrate him greatly, he cannot make laws on his own. He does present federal judges for consideration but even those aren't shoe ins. This is by design. I'd disagree that "we, the people" are better qualified to pick judges. We can't always pick a good president and much of that is due to the lack of truthful information we receive and just as much is due to so many people not taking time consider anything but what's in it for them. We'd be just as well off picking judges by drawing straws than voting for them. Maybe we'd even do better.

- Collapse -
If you don't believe in...
Feb 16, 2016 11:44PM PST

"we the people" then maybe you are living in the wrong country. There are others where the people matter less. Some even have royals and nobles. As for me, I prefer "we the people" instead of "the royal "WE" the priviliged".

- Collapse -
James... I thought "We, the people" belonged to
Feb 17, 2016 2:20AM PST

a representative democracy. We vote for our president and representatives to congress out of trust, supposedly, that they are qualified to make law and govern. The federal judicial branch is supposed to keep them honest. We don't pick those but we rely on those we've trusted to act as our representatives. Voting comes with great responsibility and, IMO, it's failure of that responsibility that causes most of our problems. Your mention of possibly allowing more "direct power" seems counter intuitive. If we can't even pick a good president and representatives to congress, what makes you think we can pick good judges?

We, the people, need to start by not blaming those we sent to DC for what they've done. We, the people, did this to ourselves. We, the people, need to work on our qualifications to vote intelligently. We, the people, also need to learn how to support our opinions in a way that causes people to want to listen rather than using shouts and insults that turn their ears away.

- Collapse -
Well, using your own words
Mar 11, 2016 4:17PM PST
"We can't always pick a good president and much of that is due to the lack of truthful information we receive and just as much is due to so many people not taking time consider anything but what's in it for them. "
With that said, Why wouldn't we the people have just as much promise to choose a good SCOTUS ? Should we let the POTUS that we didn't have truthful information about have the right to have a say so?
Again, are we all morons ?
- Collapse -
You going to Trump rally in Chi-town tonight?
Mar 11, 2016 4:28PM PST

Check out the raucous one in St. Louis on youtube. Some have Wagner dubbed in "Ride of the Valkyries", since that was a Hitler favorite at his rallies. It's not actually part of the rally though.

- Collapse -
LOL
Mar 11, 2016 4:35PM PST

Drove right past it on the way from the VA hospital,
It's good to see the college kids getting involved again

- Collapse -
what are they protesting?
Mar 11, 2016 4:40PM PST

It's not a war. Seems they are protesting Trump speaking. Protesting free speech?

- Collapse -
Aww, crap, it's been cancelled
Mar 11, 2016 4:43PM PST

Chicago loses. Some bubble head feminist is blathering on TV and then cut to some black student? being removed from the stage. It's mob rule there right now. That's what America is about now? When it was announced as cancelled the protestors took over the place.

- Collapse -
(NT) Yup
Mar 11, 2016 4:47PM PST
- Collapse -
Was gonna post
Mar 11, 2016 4:49PM PST
- Collapse -
thanks for the link
Mar 11, 2016 5:15PM PST

this is current live in the Pavilion, seems to be mostly cleared out now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxZP-gFhabs#t=374

Expect riot as the night wears on. Every young fool who considers himself to be somebody will be running off at the mouth to try and get things rolling once the more reasonable ones are gone.

- Collapse -
Re: it's not right
Feb 16, 2016 5:13AM PST

It may not be right, but it is the Holy Constitution.

That's the same as the right to bear arms. That's not right either (well, it was when all around you were natives shooting you, not to mention British soldiers wanting to suppress the rightfui revolution, but no longer now)., but it's the Holy Constitution also.

Kees

- Collapse -
How about policy designed to prevent
Feb 16, 2016 6:46AM PST

recurrence of that thought to be repressive? I'd say that's one of the important reasons for the 2nd Amendment. I wasn't there but I do suspect the right to personal protection was a given and not needed to be written into the constitution. It was more likely the old practice of disarming citizens so they couldn't revolt.