pat Buchanan has a good piece on judges

#26
#26
Septic said:
The fact that we live in a Republic has apparently been lost on some folks in here. That or they have no idea what a Republic is.

I guess since they thought that their boy got elected it was opens season for anything he wanted. Pretty sure that these were the same folks chirping about Obama being a dictator.

:whistling:
Click to expand...

that's a stupid statement. given an EO based on prior EO for the same issue isn't open season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#28
#28
Septic said:
Seems everyone has an opinion on Constitutional law, yet to my knowledge none have a formal education or experience in interpreting it. Lots of armchair quarterbacking going on these days. Opinions are like A-holes.

Checks and balances folks, without it it's not far fetched to believe a dictatorship is right around the corner.
Click to expand...

where are the checks and balances for judges? they obviously have none
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#29
#29
Orange_Crush said:
Does that mean you don't get to criticize Trump until you've been president?
Click to expand...

Does the presidency require an advanced degree, special knowledge or formal training? Does the presidency require an exam that demonstrates competence?

When it does your question will be more relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#30
#30
Persian Vol said:
Overturning laws or executive actions that they "deem" unconstitutional is not making policy.
Click to expand...

And that's avoiding the question.

Do you think the Judicial Branch should have the power to do such things? Like Roe v. Wade was policy made from the bench.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#34
#34
Though I do not respect Pat Buchanan in the slightest, I decided to follow my own advice and read the article and critique the argument.

The article is simply a hit piece. Statements like "President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out." That is it. No support. No facts, no analysis.

Likewise he provides no analysis of this decision. The article is just more whining. It is terribly written an it is nothing but a b!tchfest.

Now for my opinion... not of the decision. I've stated that elsewhere. The atmosphere in this country, and this is critique is applicable to both sides of the aisle, lacks decorum. Disagree with the opinion, but this constant need to degrade the person holding the opinion is disheartening. Our last two presidents have face more personal and unwarranted attacks than any that I can remember. Attacking the person and not the argument is lazy. We've lost the ability to debate the issues. Now the fact that I voted for Hillary means that I must hate this country and have some mental illness. You voted for Trump because you're a racist hick. It's time to get the F*** over ourselves and examine the issues and leave the person out of the discussion.


Trump's use of twitter and blatant disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him is setting an awful tone and exacerbating the problem. Respect your opponent and dissect their arguments. The late Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg often disagreed vehemently with each other, but each had a deep respect for the other and did not let their legal disagreements extend into their personal friendship. It's a relationship that is refreshing and stands in sharp contrast to people demonstrating because they lost an election or a president personally attacking a judge because his order was overturned.

Just my .02, but I really miss being able to have political and policy discussions without losing friends.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 10 people
#35
#35
ClearwaterVol said:
Though I do not respect Pat Buchanan in the slightest, I decided to follow my own advice and read the article and critique the argument.

The article is simply a hit piece. Statements like "President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out." That is it. No support. No facts, no analysis.

Likewise he provides no analysis of this decision. The article is just more whining. It is terribly written an it is nothing but a b!tchfest.

Now for my opinion... not of the decision. I've stated that elsewhere. The atmosphere in this country, and this is critique is applicable to both sides of the aisle, lacks decorum. Disagree with the opinion, but this constant need to degrade the person holding the opinion is disheartening. Our last two presidents have face more personal and unwarranted attacks than any that I can remember. Attacking the person and not the argument is lazy. We've lost the ability to debate the issues. Now the fact that I voted for Hillary means that I must hate this country and have some mental illness. It's time to get the F*** over ourselves and examine the issues and leave the person out of the discussion.


Trump's use of twitter and blatant disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him is setting an awful tone and exacerbating the problem. Respect your opponent and dissect their arguments. The late Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg often disagreed vehemently with each other, but each had a deep respect for the other and did not let their legal disagreements extend into their personal friendship. It's a relationship that is refreshing and stands in sharp contrast to people demonstrating because they lost an election or a president personally attacking a judge because his order was overturned.

Just my .02, but I really miss being able to have political and policy discussions without losing friends.
Click to expand...

Agree with the bold 100%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#36
#36
Septic said:
Does the presidency require an advanced degree, special knowledge or formal training? Does the presidency require an exam that demonstrates competence?

When it does your question will be more relevant.
Click to expand...

You'll need to show that all of those things are required to read and comprehend the Constitution.

But, by logical definition, your argument informs us that you don't need those things to read and understand the constitution, since the people who first created those advanced degrees, "special" knowledge (whatever that is), and formal training, didn't have those advanced degrees, "special" knowledge (whatever that is) and formal training in order to create them.

In other words, unless you want to argue an infinite regress, you'll need to admit that people without those things can read and comprehend the constitution. And unless you want to be so intellectually vaccuous as to hinge an argument on an appeal to authority, you may just want to back up and find other things to lose yourself over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#38
#38
ClearwaterVol said:
Though I do not respect Pat Buchanan in the slightest, I decided to follow my own advice and read the article and critique the argument.

The article is simply a hit piece. Statements like "President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out." That is it. No support. No facts, no analysis.

Likewise he provides no analysis of this decision. The article is just more whining. It is terribly written an it is nothing but a b!tchfest.

Now for my opinion... not of the decision. I've stated that elsewhere. The atmosphere in this country, and this is critique is applicable to both sides of the aisle, lacks decorum. Disagree with the opinion, but this constant need to degrade the person holding the opinion is disheartening. Our last two presidents have face more personal and unwarranted attacks than any that I can remember. Attacking the person and not the argument is lazy. We've lost the ability to debate the issues. Now the fact that I voted for Hillary means that I must hate this country and have some mental illness. You voted for Trump because you're a racist hick. It's time to get the F*** over ourselves and examine the issues and leave the person out of the discussion.


Trump's use of twitter and blatant disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him is setting an awful tone and exacerbating the problem. Respect your opponent and dissect their arguments. The late Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg often disagreed vehemently with each other, but each had a deep respect for the other and did not let their legal disagreements extend into their personal friendship. It's a relationship that is refreshing and stands in sharp contrast to people demonstrating because they lost an election or a president personally attacking a judge because his order was overturned.

Just my .02, but I really miss being able to have political and policy discussions without losing friends.
Click to expand...

Outstanding.
 
#39
#39
Orange_Crush said:
You'll need to show that all of those things are required to read and comprehend the Constitution.

But, by logical definition, your argument informs us that you don't need those things to read and understand the constitution, since the people who first created those advanced degrees, "special" knowledge (whatever that is), and formal training, didn't have those advanced degrees, "special" knowledge (whatever that is) and formal training in order to create them.

In other words, unless you want to argue an infinite regress, you'll need to admit that people without those things can read and comprehend the constitution. And unless you want to be so intellectually vaccuous as to hinge an argument on an appeal to authority, you may just want to back up and find other things to lose yourself over.
Click to expand...

It may sadden you to hear this but I'm not following you down the rabbit hole to philosophically debate humanity's ability to read, comprehend and interpret equally. So, I'll argue infinite regress.

Good luck convincing rational people that Joe is just as qualified to interpret constitutional law as the federal judges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#40
#40
Grand Vol said:
And that's avoiding the question.

Do you think the Judicial Branch should have the power to do such things? Like Roe v. Wade was policy made from the bench.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with their power to make these decisions. It is not as if they are actively making policy in the manner that the other branches of government make policy. If we can't keep that decision policy and later develop upon it after a ruling, then what is the relevance of that decision anyways? Why even make a decision? In the end who makes this kind of decision? I see no better option than to have someone with a deep understanding of the constitution make a well informed decision. But of course if this decision doesn't coincide with our political beliefs, we began to conspiricize that judges have personal or political motives. This is not far from the truth, nonetheless it does not warrant the disrespect and accusations that individuals like Trump for example are making.
 
#43
#43
ClearwaterVol said:
Though I do not respect Pat Buchanan in the slightest, I decided to follow my own advice and read the article and critique the argument.

The article is simply a hit piece. Statements like "President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out." That is it. No support. No facts, no analysis.

Likewise he provides no analysis of this decision. The article is just more whining. It is terribly written an it is nothing but a b!tchfest.

Now for my opinion... not of the decision. I've stated that elsewhere. The atmosphere in this country, and this is critique is applicable to both sides of the aisle, lacks decorum. Disagree with the opinion, but this constant need to degrade the person holding the opinion is disheartening. Our last two presidents have face more personal and unwarranted attacks than any that I can remember. Attacking the person and not the argument is lazy. We've lost the ability to debate the issues. Now the fact that I voted for Hillary means that I must hate this country and have some mental illness. You voted for Trump because you're a racist hick. It's time to get the F*** over ourselves and examine the issues and leave the person out of the discussion.


Trump's use of twitter and blatant disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him is setting an awful tone and exacerbating the problem. Respect your opponent and dissect their arguments. The late Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg often disagreed vehemently with each other, but each had a deep respect for the other and did not let their legal disagreements extend into their personal friendship. It's a relationship that is refreshing and stands in sharp contrast to people demonstrating because they lost an election or a president personally attacking a judge because his order was overturned.

Just my .02, but I really miss being able to have political and policy discussions without losing friends.
Click to expand...

who started these personal and below the belt attacks? it's quite obvious left started it with Bush and it's gotten worse. Academia and the media have led the way in attacks, 1st with Bush and then with GOP led congress. obama also helped fanned the fire in talking out of both sides of his mouth and indirectly encouraging violent attacks through BLM and other fascist organizations. now, we've reached a new low in how the left has been active since Trump has been elected. these fascist activists have attack trump supports all through the election and continue to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#45
#45
joevol320 said:
who started these personal and below the belt attacks? it's quite obvious left started it with Bush and it's gotten worse. Academia and the media have led the way in attacks, 1st with Bush and then with GOP led congress. obama also helped fanned the fire in talking out of both sides of his mouth and indirectly encouraging violent attacks through BLM and other fascist organizations. now, we've reached a new low in how the left has been active since Trump has been elected. these fascist activists have attack trump supports all through the election and continue to do so.
Click to expand...

You never fail to disappoint, Joe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#46
#46
Septic said:
It's because folks love the ACA, it's that Obamacare s#it that they have a problem with.

:birgits_giggle:
Click to expand...

Folks don't like the mandate part,and I agree. Some say repeal/replace others are saying "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater". :question:
 
#47
#47
ClearwaterVol said:
Though I do not respect Pat Buchanan in the slightest, I decided to follow my own advice and read the article and critique the argument.

The article is simply a hit piece. Statements like "President Eisenhower called his Supreme Court choices Earl Warren and William Brennan two of the “worst mistakes” he made as president. History bears Ike out." That is it. No support. No facts, no analysis.

Likewise he provides no analysis of this decision. The article is just more whining. It is terribly written an it is nothing but a b!tchfest.

Now for my opinion... not of the decision. I've stated that elsewhere. The atmosphere in this country, and this is critique is applicable to both sides of the aisle, lacks decorum. Disagree with the opinion, but this constant need to degrade the person holding the opinion is disheartening. Our last two presidents have face more personal and unwarranted attacks than any that I can remember. Attacking the person and not the argument is lazy. We've lost the ability to debate the issues. Now the fact that I voted for Hillary means that I must hate this country and have some mental illness. You voted for Trump because you're a racist hick. It's time to get the F*** over ourselves and examine the issues and leave the person out of the discussion.


Trump's use of twitter and blatant disrespect for anyone that disagrees with him is setting an awful tone and exacerbating the problem. Respect your opponent and dissect their arguments. The late Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg often disagreed vehemently with each other, but each had a deep respect for the other and did not let their legal disagreements extend into their personal friendship. It's a relationship that is refreshing and stands in sharp contrast to people demonstrating because they lost an election or a president personally attacking a judge because his order was overturned.

Just my .02, but I really miss being able to have political and policy discussions without losing friends.
Click to expand...

Good post CWV, appreciate your objectivity . True friends can engage in political discourse if they can find common ground. :hi: Ronald Reagan quoted: We can agree we disagree, we can still be agreeable at the end of the day".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#48
#48
Septic said:
It may sadden you to hear this but I'm not following you down the rabbit hole to philosophically debate humanity's ability to read, comprehend and interpret equally. So, I'll argue infinite regress.

Good luck convincing rational people that Joe is just as qualified to interpret constitutional law as the federal judges.
Click to expand...

Good luck convincing ration people that appeals to authoity are more valid than dealing with peoples' points. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#49
#49
Grand Vol said:
Do you think the Judicial Branch should be allowed to make policy from the bench? Or stick to interpreting the law as its supposed to?
Click to expand...

That is a big problem. During graduate school I took an introductory law course, and I was absolutely amazed at the conflict between what the legal system considers logic and what an engineer would consider logic. I remember one real discussion with the professor regarding "law" made by precedent vs codified law. And to this day it still boggles my mind that we hear that not knowing or understanding the law is no excuse when our system is a moving target made up of entire libraries of books filled with court precedents.

We have three branches of government and the judicial branch supposedly does not have the right to make law, yet it does that on a daily basis. With that, the concept of checks and balances is a lost concept.

This current immigration ruling really has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with precedent set by other courts. That is unless you believe that the Constitution affords the same benefits and privileges to non-Citizens.

I'd propose the guys in black robes simply adopt the same headdress that the guys in white robes used to wear because they seem to be of their own brotherhood with no one to check their abuse of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#50
#50
AM64 said:
That is a big problem. During graduate school I took an introductory law course, and I was absolutely amazed at the conflict between what the legal system considers logic and what an engineer would consider logic. I remember one real discussion with the professor regarding "law" made by precedent vs codified law. And to this day it still boggles my mind that we hear that not knowing or understanding the law is no excuse when our system is a moving target made up of entire libraries of books filled with court precedents.

We have three branches of government and the judicial branch supposedly does not have the right to make law, yet it does that on a daily basis. With that, the concept of checks and balances is a lost concept.

This current immigration ruling really has nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with precedent set by other courts. That is unless you believe that the Constitution affords the same benefits and privileges to non-Citizens.

I'd propose the guys in black robes simply adopt the same headdress that the guys in white robes used to wear because they seem to be of their own brotherhood with no one to check their abuse of power.
Click to expand...

Term limits for every branch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top