I'm Thrilled

[Bryce]

Just thrilled I tell you. This SCOTUS pick has justified holding my nose and voting for the current President.

[Deleted User 8570]

Just thrilled I tell you. This SCOTUS pick has justified holding my nose and voting for the current President.

Yay....

[Y M Ionhere]

I'm 75% happy. I reluctantly voted for this President and regret it (Gary Johnson, though a goofball, would have been easier on my conscious). I criticize him as much as I defend him nowadays. However, this is why I voted for him. I believe the Constitution has a very specific message and meant to be interpreted as such. It is my personal belief that those claiming it is a "living, breathing document" do so only because they so badly want to believe that, since they politically take issue with how the document reads and desperately want it reinterpreted to fit their agenda. This pick shares my view of the Constitution as a document requiring strict, literal interpretation for it to credibly hold up and have any authority.
That being said, I do worry that he may have a slight religious bias that could potentially cloud his judgement. I am a Christian who attends church, so I'm not one of those guys who constantly criticizes people of faith.But at the same time, I am a little concerned about some slightly impartial judgements on that front.
How long do you suppose Schumer will filibuster this pick?

[Deleted User 8570]

I'm 75% happy. I reluctantly voted for this President and regret it (Gary Johnson, though a goofball, would have been easier on my conscious). I criticize him as much as I defend him nowadays. However, this is why I voted for him. I believe the Constitution has a very specific message and meant to be interpreted as such. It is my personal belief that those claiming it is a "living, breathing document" do so only because they so badly want to believe that, since they politically take issue with how the document reads and desperately want it reinterpreted to fit their agenda. This pick shares my view of the Constitution as a document requiring strict, literal interpretation for it to credibly hold up and have any authority.
That being said, I do worry that he may have a slight religious bias that could potentially cloud his judgement. I am a Christian who attends church, so I'm not one of those guys who constantly criticizes people of faith.But at the same time, I am a little concerned about some slightly impartial judgements on that front.
How long do you suppose Schumer will filibuster this pick?

4 years.

If you want to be literal with the constitution than you must party like it's 1787 and interpret the world in those terms, otherwise no dice.

[Y M Ionhere]

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.

[Y M Ionhere]

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.

[Deleted User 8570]

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.

Guns = use for a militia or hunting or maybe a rousing dual...
Transportation matters? Think horses.
It's living in the sense that it isn't fixed... it's been changed 26 times... that's what people mean. You also have to interpret it based on the world we live in and the concepts we have today. Applying 1787 thinking to 2017 is like trying to power a Ferrari with a mule...

Oh and if you want to be literal then no more Supreme Court settling constitutional questions. That's not in there. That's the ultimate judicial activism.

[Bryce]

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.

Guns = use for a militia or hunting or maybe a rousing dual...
Transportation matters? Think horses.
It's living in the sense that it isn't fixed... it's been changed 26 times... that's what people mean. You also have to interpret it based on the world we live in and the concepts we have today. Applying 1787 thinking to 2017 is like trying to power a Ferrari with a mule...

Oh and if you want to be literal then no more Supreme Court settling constitutional questions. That's not in there. That's the ultimate judicial activism.

Your points are valid NS. The founders/framers understood that. That's why they made two options available to change or amend the COTUS. Neither of which was vested in an individual wearing a black robe.

[audiophile]

One of the biggest judicial activism's was Roe v Wade. They strung together various unrelated parts of the constitution, and set a bright line at the first trimester. Funny, I never found first trimester in the constitution....

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rul ... roe-v-wade

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -activism/

[Deleted User 8570]

One of the biggest judicial activism's was Roe v Wade. They strung together various unrelated parts of the constitution, and set a bright line at the first trimester. Funny, I never found first trimester in the constitution....

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/rul ... roe-v-wade

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... -activism/

In theory none of the Supreme Courts rulings on anything to do with constitutionality are valid... they did it in 1803 in a purely political maneuver and nobody stopped them and so they just kept doing it... 214 years later it goes on... I would argue EVERY Supreme Court ruling is unconstitutional...

[craig11152]

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.i firmly do not believe the founders intended it to be vague or flexible. No point in writing it if it was supposed to change. I do not believe theres any indication that it was intended to be a living, breathing document and as such, cannot be treated as such.its not a blank canvas. I have a hard time believing that most people could think otherwise. They just wont say it.

Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every generation. Granted he wasn't there when it was written (was an ambassador in France I think) but he wrote the Declaration of Independence and he is on everybody's short list of "Founding Fathers". He is also on most short lists of greatest American "thinkers". His theory was that the nation belonged to the living not the dead. He felt once more than half the generation that wrote the last one was gone it was time to write a new one.


As to Supreme Court Justices I think/wish they should be elected by the people and/or have a set term. I'm OK if that term is 10-12 years but it should have an end.

[jry]

Meaningful and timeless words, not a living, breathing document.

It means what it means. Nice pick, DJT.

[craig11152]

Sorry, but I cannot comprehend how anyone can seriously, honestly believe that the Constitution can be interpreted in any way other than a very literal meaning.

Meaningful and timeless words, not a living, breathing document.

I certainly disagree. The constitution says the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States but it doesn't mention the Air Force. Should we assume the Air Force doesn't have to answer to the President because its not in the Constitution?

[TC Talks]

Meaningful and timeless words, not a living, breathing document.

So a document written when Blacks were property and Women weren't people? I see...

[craig11152]

I would argue the mere fact that they made provisions for amendments suggests some degree of "living and breathing".

The 18th amendment banning alcohol and the 21st amendment banning the 18th seem like living and breathing to me.