New Jersey Hunters banner
1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I would like to know how a person being chosen for the Supreme Court Of The United States could get away with saying she would let her heritage influence her decision as opposed to what the laws read?

I would also like to know how she could say the 2nd amendment is not a states right? Would that not be like saying the 1st amendment is not for the individual?
I guess the word people does not refer to those living in the state.

Last, I am uneasy. Uneasy at the statements she is on record saying, uneasy at the issues we have as Americans with insecure Boarders, uneasy about the giving away of what people have worked so hard for, and the disregard for Freedom.

Freedom is not telling everyone how they should be like you, but rather having choices and the ability to make them. From PETA right on down to the current administration and the nominee for the Supreme Court, I am appalled at the Politicians letting our freedoms become part of the voting war for their party based on race, religion, and sex.

People are put into power to uphold the constitution and make the hard decisions. Like the case of the firemen in CT where they scored high on an exam and were not promoted on merit, but denied on race!!!

My eye water to think of this America. The America where I was taught it was not what you look like, but grades, hard work, and dedication to following the law. Understanding you may loose, but to win you must work harder or find something you are good at, not changes the rules so those who work hard have to give the blood and sweat to those who choose not to sacrifice.

We all have the promise of obtaining the American Dream. We do not have the guarantee to have it handed to us.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,233 Posts
Anyone who truely cares about this issue should order and read this book: The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom.

It makes clear how the court has been manipulated to subvert the Constitution and strip the power away fom the people and put it firmly into the hands of the Federal Govt.

Since the days of FDR and the original New Deal, no court has truely protected our Constitutional and Bill of Rights Freedoms. There have been a few 'wins' here and there, but its been a down hill slope since 1929.

Buy your guns now, we're gonna need them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,137 Posts
Buy your guns now, we're gonna need them.
Its a sad state when someone has to say that... even sadder when most reading it agree. I'm with you 100% and wont go quietly!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,462 Posts
Good Post[up]

The worst part is Obama will probably get at least one more Supreme Court appointment, not to mention appelate court appointments, before we get him out of office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,680 Posts
If we all think that our life experiences do not affect our thinking, we are living in a dream world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,462 Posts
If we all think that our life experiences do not affect our thinking, we are living in a dream world.
What you say is true, but we are talking about a Supreme Court nominee here. A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to impartially interpret the Constitution based on the letter of the law, not interject their personal prejudices based on their life experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,376 Posts
before we get him out of office.
Unfortionatly due to all his flock(the sheeple) the so called "messiah" will be in office for 8 years.unless by luck he does something to get impeached.or worse case scenario is that he has the 2 term presidency overturned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,680 Posts
What you say is true, but we are talking about a Supreme Court nominee here. A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to impartially interpret the Constitution based on the letter of the law, not interject their personal prejudices based on their life experience.
__________________
We are all human beings and each have our own prejudices. No one is immune to any kind of prejudice. If this was not true, every decision on the Supreme Court would be unanimous. They almost never are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,710 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
If this was not true, every decision on the Supreme Court would be unanimous. They almost never are.
Just because they may disagree on a law doesn't mean they are interjecting their personal influences or life experiences. Yes there are ways to look at laws and interpretations of those laws, but when you say what she said and have a position to interpret the law based on laws you do not let your personal moral ground, ideals, or ethnicity come into play.

To use those "life experiences" or your personal moral ground, ideals, or ethnicity, would create a bias and thus be prejudice. This prejudice is completely against the constitution, but wait that would only apply to the federal gov. not the states to which the Federal Government presides according to the new nominee.

While past laws have yes been prejudice and bias for men, against women, and yes against some races, it was still the law which was used to over the existing bias or prejudice laws, not Personal ideals, personal moral ground, or life experiences.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,680 Posts
[sleep]Like Gordon Lightfoot said: "If you could read my mind, what a tale my thoughts would tell." Or something like that. Only the person themselves knows what's going on in their minds.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top