• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Your opinion of supreme court justices

Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Salvador said:
I abhor Ginsburg's dissent on Heller vs. D.C., I consider gun ownership for the purpose of self defense to be an inalienable right according to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.

Ginsburg's old age will soon require she be replaced.
Click to expand...
Ginsburg did not write the dissent in Heller. I understand that you believe gun ownership according to the second amendment is an inalienable right; but this is where my thread is directed. It seems to me reasonable to assume that if you cannot explain where you disagree with Ginsburg then it is likely you haven't actually read anything she has written or even joined with whoch you disagree. That definitely raises the question why you feel dislike for her and her opinions. Further, even had you disagreed with a particular opinion i wonder what level of disagreement would warrant a statement like "Ginsburg's old age will so require she be replaced." This sentence thrown on to the end of your post, seems like you revel in the fact that she will need to be replaced. I am just failing to see why.
 
Salvador

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Curious George said:
Ginsburg did not write the dissent in Heller. I understand that you believe gun ownership according to the second amendment is an inalienable right; but this is where my thread is directed. It seems to me reasonable to assume that if you cannot explain where you disagree with Ginsburg then it is likely you haven't actually read anything she has written or even joined with whoch you disagree. That definitely raises the question why you feel dislike for her and her opinions. Further, even had you disagreed with a particular opinion i wonder what level of disagreement would warrant a statement like "Ginsburg's old age will so require she be replaced." This sentence thrown on to the end of your post, seems like you revel in the fact that she will need to be replaced. I am just failing to see why.
Click to expand...

If the government were ever to try having my guns taken away from me, they and their army would have to pry away the rifle out of the grasp of my dead cold hand!
 
Salvador

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Polymath257 said:
And, truthfully, I agree with Ginsburg on this. The amendment is pretty clear about the freedom being to have a well regulated militia. And, let's face it, very few of the gun owners are in a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...

If this were the case, then there'd be lot's of states forming militias in order to allow their citizens the right to bear arms. Also, we might very well agree a well-armed citizenry is the most effective way to stop a bad guy with a gun.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Salvador said:
If this were the case, then there'd be lot's of states forming militias in order to allow their citizens the right to bear arms. Also, we might very well agree a well-armed citizenry is the most effective way to stop a bad guy with a gun.
Click to expand...

And states *do* have such militias. They are usually called the National Guard. And I disagree that the second amendment is about stopping a bad guy with a gun.
 
Salvador

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Polymath257 said:
And states *do* have such militias. They are usually called the National Guard. And I disagree that the second amendment is about stopping a bad guy with a gun.
Click to expand...

The legislated structure of the National Guard is rather quite the opposite of a "militia" The National Guard is a voluntary structure adjunct to the Army and the Navy, which can and has been called up for other reasons besides Constitutionally required reasons for “the Militia of the several States”
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
I do not understand how a judicial system can be so in the pockets of politicians.

In the UK most people could not name a single supreme court judge. And would not know what their political preferences might be.
What is more important, is that politicians would not know that either. Judges do not make political decisions.
 
Polymath257

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Salvador said:
The legislated structure of the National Guard is rather quite the opposite of a "militia" The National Guard is a voluntary structure adjunct to the Army and the Navy, which can and has been called up for other reasons besides Constitutionally required reasons for “the Militia of the several States”
Click to expand...

I guess we disagree about the interpretation, which is precisely what is put out in the Federalist papers. You know, original interpretation.
 
Salvador

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Polymath257 said:
I guess we disagree about the interpretation, which is precisely what is put out in the Federalist papers. You know, original interpretation.
Click to expand...

I'll agree to respectfully disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution's original textual context regarding the Second Amendment.
 
Salvador

Salvador

RF's Swedenborgian
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not understand how a judicial system can be so in the pockets of politicians.

In the UK most people could not name a single supreme court judge. And would not know what their political preferences might be.
What is more important, is that politicians would not know that either. Judges do not make political decisions.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I follow lots of American politics, and still I could only name six out of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I reckon if most conservative Brits were to realize how conservative judges in America are mistreated by most liberal elitists with most of the American media, then many Brits would be very disgusted regarding how most American liberals would rather have judges in the court legislating their political ideology instead of having judges upholding the American people's Constitutional given rights. .
 
Terrywoodenpic

Terrywoodenpic

Oldest Heretic
Salvador said:
Honestly, I follow lots of American politics, and still I could only name six out of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices. I reckon if most conservative Brits were to realize how conservative judges in America are mistreated by most liberal elitists with most of the American media, then many Brits would be very disgusted regarding how most American liberals would rather have judges in the court legislating their political ideology instead of having judges upholding the American people's Constitutional given rights. .
Click to expand...

That should not be an issue they should all be upholding the law not taking sides.
But from what I read all the justices vote by party on contentious issues.
That never happens here.

However if you vote in politians as judges you get political decisions.
 
Curious George

Curious George

Veteran Member
Terrywoodenpic said:
I do not understand how a judicial system can be so in the pockets of politicians.

In the UK most people could not name a single supreme court judge. And would not know what their political preferences might be.
What is more important, is that politicians would not know that either. Judges do not make political decisions.
Click to expand...
It is not really in the "pockets of politicians."

There is undoubtedly judicial corruption that needs to be addressed, but this doesn't mean the system is broken, unnecessary, or toxic.

While i congratulate the UK in finally creating a supreme court and their movement away from a system of parliamentary sovereignty, i do not think the people of the UK are alone in their lack of ability to name Supreme Court Justices. While they are definitely more prominent with the recent Kavanaugh confirmation process, the refusal to hear the appointment of hon. Garland and the subsequent appointment of hon. Gorsuch. Supreme court justices are not really fighting for the political spotlight.

Still, I do think one should read their opinions. Knowing there names may be a consequence of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top