Why not Garland for SCOTUS

Discussion in 'Politics and Religion' started by buster40c, Mar 19, 2016.

  1. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    It figures Obama would choose Merrick Garland as a possible nominee for SCOTUS. Garland evidently believes opinions on the Constitution are more important than what the Constitution plainly says. People like this should not even be considered for becoming a deciding vote on Constitutional cases.
    But then again Kagan should never been allowed on the bench either but there she is. How anyone can find humor while being interviewed for SCOTUS yet still get appointed is beyond my understanding. Now Obama wants another thorn installed on the Constitutional branch.
  2. VThillman

    VThillman Active Member

    Near as I can tell, most of the unemotional decisions based on law in the US are heavily influenced by 'case law', which I gather is the weight of previous court decisions - all of which are presumed to be based in turn on, um, legislated law. That there is no logical need for case law to be relevant for SCOTUS - the Constitution is right there to be read - seems to escape the understanding of judges who have operated under the influence of case law for their entire careers.

    Case law is vulnerable to cherry-picking, because there is usually a lot of it, and it isn't necessarily consistent. Why the hell Supreme Court Justices wish to rely on it, I dunno.

    Anyway, is there an obvious reason to assume that the SCOTUS nominee will continue to apply case law to his decisions about the Constitution if appointed?

  3. buster40c

    buster40c Well-Known Member

    Even case law in the previous century for the most part stood with the Constitution. But then again the deck wasn't stacked as well as it appears to be becoming. Like Levine said, when the ACA was found Constitutional that was the end of the Constitution being upheld by the SCOTUS. I really wonder just how much of the ACA was read and just how much of the 2800 pages were actually deemed Constitutional by the SCOTUS?
    The SCOTUS it appears will be used to take this country down from within. It was said over 50 years ago that the USA would be taken down from within. Those words are very close to being fulfilled. This coming presidential election corruption will IMO be so obvious that even a blind person will be able to see it. IMO If or when the 2nd is written off the books then it will be goodbye USA.
    Yep instead of case law being shown it was wrong often based on personal translation which was distortion of the Constitution it is being taken as the new translation. I think it is so absolutely stupid how the Constitution reads it shall be the law of the land but then that simple statement has been so crapped on it is not even followed or recognized. These United States doesn't mean to each his own concerning the Constitution but rather the states are united under Constitutional law not individual state case law. But we can see that has been distorted from almost the beginning. Shall not be infringed does not say except by individual state laws.
    IMO the real extremist threat to this country's existence is by those that want to disarm the citizens of the USA. This is exactly why the 2nd was written.