Predict Roy Moore vs Doug Jones

[bystander]

Because of the promise of getting a guy like Gorsuch on the Court who will support their views on abortion. The pro life movement has hijacked the idealogical right or the right has hijacked the pro life movement. It's just interesting to me that evangelicals like them will support the ***** grabber. I think a lot of people are single issue voters.

I believe in many cases it's more than a single issue (I can't speak for your neighbors). It's the penumbra versus strict constructionist. One day Trump will be gone, but Gorsuch will be there. That is the nose-holding phenomenen in action.

 

[OUBubba]

I believe in many cases it's more than a single issue (I can't speak for your neighbors). It's the penumbra versus strict constructionist. One day Trump will be gone, but Gorsuch will be there. That is the nose-holding phenomenen in action.

Yep. It makes hypocrits of us all at some point.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Because of the promise of getting a guy like Gorsuch on the Court who will support their views on abortion. The pro life movement has hijacked the idealogical right or the right has hijacked the pro life movement. It's just interesting to me that evangelicals like them will support the ***** grabber. I think a lot of people are single issue voters.

Is it because Gorsuch will support their views or because he wouldn't actively stomp on their views? There's a difference. A guy like Gorsuch isn't going to ban abortion. He would permit the elected representatives of the people decide the issue as they decide most issues. If Hillary Clinton had won, she would have appointed the decisive vote to subvert the democratic process on abortion and a myriad of social issues. It's more than a policy loss on a single issue. It's the effective disenfranchisement on whatever issue the social Left decides it cares about at any given moment.

Two points on that. First, despite this, I still didn't vote for Trump (or Hillary). Second, it shouldn't be this way. People shouldn't have to worry about judges stepping on the will of the people on what are in reality policy questions rather than legal questions. However, until the Democratic Party decides to stop appointing people to the courts who don't understand what a judge is, it's going to be this way. People like your neighbors are going to feel like they have no choice but to back Trump. You may not like it and I didn't do what they did, but there's nothing unprincipled or hypocritical about their decision.

 

[NJlonghorn]

Yep, lots of challenges in our railway systems. The early evidence seems to show that the rate of speed the conductor had the train traveling was well in excess the speed limit for that section. I have read something about a "Positive Train Control" system that wasn't in place on this section of the track. This system is supposed to alert the conductor to slow down. You could probably argue that's an infrastructure need.

Positive Train Control, or PTC, does more than alert the conductor. It slows or stops the train automatically.

Federal law required PTC on all active rail lines by 2015 or 2016, but the deadline has been extended several times. It is currently sometime in 2019, iirc. PTC is already functional on some train lines, mostly in the northeast. In fact, PTC technology has been installed on the line where the Washington State accident happened, but it was still in a testing phase and therefore not in use.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Positive Train Control, or PTC, does more than alert the conductor. It slows or stops the train automatically.

Federal law required PTC on all active rail lines by 2015 or 2016, but the deadline has been extended several times. It is currently sometime in 2019, iirc. PTC is already functional on some train lines, mostly in the northeast. In fact, PTC technology has been installed on the line where the Washington State accident happened, but it was still in a testing phase and therefore not in use.

I'm sure the fact that we PTC was installed but not active will be a point of litigation at some point in the future.

Supposedly the 30MPH speed limit sign was present 2 miles before the accident occurred but it was probably difficult to see it flying by at 80MPH.

 

[bystander]

Is it because Gorsuch will support their views or because he wouldn't actively stomp on their views? There's a difference. A guy like Gorsuch isn't going to ban abortion. He would permit the elected representatives of the people decide the issue as they decide most issues. If Hillary Clinton had won, she would have appointed the decisive vote to subvert the democratic process on abortion and a myriad of social issues. It's more than a policy loss on a single issue. It's the effective disenfranchisement on whatever issue the social Left decides it cares about at any given moment.

Two points on that. First, despite this, I still didn't vote for Trump (or Hillary). Second, it shouldn't be this way. People shouldn't have to worry about judges stepping on the will of the people on what are in reality policy questions rather than legal questions. However, until the Democratic Party decides to stop appointing people to the courts who don't understand what a judge is, it's going to be this way. People like your neighbors are going to feel like they have no choice but to back Trump. You may not like it and I didn't do what they did, but there's nothing unprincipled or hypocritical about their decision.

I think there is supposed to be a nod towards individual rights (The Bill of Rights) and that a Conservative judge could rightly rule against a law passed by Congress that was Unconstitutional. But I'm not a lawyer. So let's say the Congress becomes a veto-proof Liberal majority and they pass a law banning gun ownership. Because they have a majority and they represent the people does this mean SCOTUS is bound to rule that it is in fact Constitutional?

 

[OUBubba]

I think there is supposed to be a nod towards individual rights (The Bill of Rights) and that a Conservative judge could rightly rule against a law passed by Congress that was Unconstitutional. But I'm not a lawyer. So let's say the Congress becomes a veto-proof Liberal majority and they pass a law banning gun ownership. Because they have a majority and they represent the people does this mean SCOTUS is bound to rule that it is in fact Constitutional?

I would think so. That's why I like lifetime appointments even in the cases of a guy like Gorsuch with whom I disagree. That's also why some of them migrate to the middle. Lifetime appointments allow them to not worry about keeping their gigs.

 

[bystander]

I would think so. That's why I like lifetime appointments even in the cases of a guy like Gorsuch with whom I disagree. That's also why some of them migrate to the middle. Lifetime appointments allow them to not worry about keeping their gigs.

If I recall, the California Supreme Court over-ruled a referendum that would have banned gay marriage. There were some arguments about over-ruling the will of the people but it has always been my understanding that a pure Democracy (majority rule) does not over-rule the Constitution. It's either Constitutional or not; independent of our wishes UNLESS we amend the Constitution.

Maybe I'm not getting this right but it seems to me that SCOTUS can declare a bill to be Unconstitutional. Many Conservatives were upset that Roberts ruled that Obamacare was Constitutional.

 

[OUBubba]

If I recall, the California Supreme Court over-ruled a referendum that would have banned gay marriage. There were some arguments about over-ruling the will of the people but it has always been my understanding that a pure Democracy (majority rule) does not over-rule the Constitution. It's either Constitutional or not; independent of our wishes UNLESS we amend the Constitution.

Maybe I'm not getting this right but it seems to me that SCOTUS can declare a bill to be Unconstitutional. Many Conservatives were upset that Roberts ruled that Obamacare was Constitutional.

The Oklahoma legislature has passed more than a few bills in the last few years that the State Court has deemed unconstitutional.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Mr. Deez]

I think there is supposed to be a nod towards individual rights (The Bill of Rights) and that a Conservative judge could rightly rule against a law passed by Congress that was Unconstitutional. But I'm not a lawyer. So let's say the Congress becomes a veto-proof Liberal majority and they pass a law banning gun ownership. Because they have a majority and they represent the people does this mean SCOTUS is bound to rule that it is in fact Constitutional?

No, the Court isn't bound to rule that a national gun ban is unconstitutional just because Congress has a majority and represents people. However, what the Court has done on abortion isn't comparable to a national gun ban.

A court is supposed to act according to the law as it's written, or to put it another way, the words in the written law matter. The further a court's ruling gets away from the actual words, the less legitimacy its ruling has, and eventually the court crosses the line from jurisprudence to tyranny and abuse of power.

There are actual words in the Constitution that prohibit a national gun ban. Where are the words that prohibit a state from outlawing abortion? The answer is that there aren't any. The Court got there by making some pretty big leaps from the actual words, which were, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (See 14th Amendment.)

The first leap was that these words guarantee substantive (as opposed to procedural) rights at all, even though that's not only not included in the words, it's in conflict with them. Well, since we're now fully departed from the actual words, it wasn't that hard for the Court to make the next leap that one of those rights was a right to privacy, but that doesn't get us quite there either. The final leap was that abortion is implicit in privacy. Really? We're not talking about activities that take place in your own home. We're talking about a medical procedure that requires you to leave your home and seek the services of someone licensed by the state private. Even if we accept these goofy leaps and stop caring about written law, since when is a state prohibited from regulating the activities of people it licenses? It's absurd and illogical.

And to be clear, this is bigger than abortion. The doctrine used to strike down abortion laws is a catch-all doctrine that the Court has used to strike down pretty much any state law it doesn't like. There are no limits on that doctrine at all. It's arbitrary.

So yes, the court can strike down laws, but if we get that untethered from the words that are written in our laws, then what's the point of writing laws? We stop being a nation governed by laws and start being a nation governed by the whims and policy preferences of 9 people who account to no one. I'm not one of these hyperbolic, "sky-is-falling" people, but this is genuinely dangerous.

 

[bystander]

Quick response Senor Deez concerning the quote below:

No, the Court isn't bound to rule that a national gun ban is unconstitutional just because Congress has a majority and represents people.

I don't know if I was vague or if you have a typo but my question was this: Is the court bound to declare the hypothetical gun ban CONSTITUTIONAL because it represents the will of the people by virtue of the majority in Congress it represents?

This comes down to the law versus the will of the people. And in this example, the law is the original law (the Constitution) and apparently the only way we could ban guns is by Constitutional amendment even if every single voting adult in America voted for Liberal representatives in order for them to pass a law banning gun ownership. This is obviously a discussion of extremes but that's how you test a theory (in my opinion).

 

[Mr. Deez]

I don't know if I was vague or if you have a typo but my question was this: Is the court bound to declare the hypothetical gun ban CONSTITUTIONAL because it represents the will of the people by virtue of the majority in Congress it represents?

I understood your question. It was a typo. The reason we have unelected federal judges is that we don't want them to make rulings according to what the people want but according to what the law says. If they piss off 99 percent of the public but have the written law on their side, so be it.

This comes down to the law versus the will of the people. And in this example, the law is the original law (the Constitution) and apparently the only way we could ban guns by Constitutional amendment even if every single voting adult in America directed voted for Liberal representatives in order for them to pass a law banning gun ownership. This is obviously a discussion of extremes but that's how you test a theory (in my opinion).

Here's the problem though. In theory you should have to pass a constitutional amendment to enact a national gun ban. However, in practice you don't, because some judges don't think their power is limited by the words in the Constitution. Accordingly, all you'd need to do is stack the Court with liberal justices, who will narrowly interpret the Second Amendment into irrelevance. Once that's done, then you can simply pass a national gun ban. It's much easier than passing a constitutional amendment.

That's the point I'm trying to get at. The words are supposed to matter, but for many judges (overwhelmingly liberals but sometimes conservatives), they don't or only do when they fit the judge's policy agenda. On cases like Roe v. Wade, the words didn't matter.

 

[bystander]

I understood your question. It was a typo. The reason we have unelected federal judges is that we don't want them to make rulings according to what the people want but according to what the law says. If they piss off 99 percent of the public but have the written law on their side, so be it.



Here's the problem though. In theory you should have to pass a constitutional amendment to enact a national gun ban. However, in practice you don't, because some judges don't think their power is limited by the words in the Constitution. Accordingly, all you'd need to do is stack the Court with liberal justices, who will narrowly interpret the Second Amendment into irrelevance. Once that's done, then you can simply pass a national gun ban. It's much easier than passing a constitutional amendment.

That's the point I'm trying to get at. The words are supposed to matter, but for many judges (overwhelmingly liberals but sometimes conservatives), they don't or only do when they fit the judge's policy agenda. On cases like Roe v. Wade, the words didn't matter.

I agree about the words. 100%. We can't have people making things up. It's too political. I have zero confidence that Liberal (as opposed to Democrats of which there are some out there; me being one of them) judges such as Ginsberg or Sotomayor will do anything other than deliver a made as instructed ruling.

As for abortion, can we say then that the Roe v Wade ruling should have been against Roe and that if Congress subsequently passed a law that made abortion legal (of course with some restrictions) it would be struck down because there are no words in the original document. Then the remaining controlling legal authority (thanks Al Gore for that one) would be these words:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

Then, we'd be right back where Roe was before she filed the lawsuit. Sounds to me from a strict constructionist point of view that another amendment would have to be ratified to make legalized abortion the law of the land.

 

[Phil Elliott]

WRT the Chappaquiddick movie, it's about time there was some sort of reckoning for what Ted Kennedy did to MJK. The people of Massachusetts are completely tone-deaf when it comes to the Kennedys. There is a big picture of Ted Kennedy in the rental car center of the Boston airport. Not a good combo, I thought, Ted and rent cars, but I doubt anyone in that state gave it a second thought.

 

[Seattle Husker]

LOL! Purportedly seen in Chicago.

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

Because of the promise of getting a guy like Gorsuch on the Court who will support their views on abortion. The pro life movement has hijacked the idealogical right or the right has hijacked the pro life movement. It's just interesting to me that evangelicals like them will support the ***** grabber. I think a lot of people are single issue voters.

I doubt they supported Slick Willy, but you could ask them just to be sure.

 

[Mr. Deez]

As for abortion, can we say then that the Roe v Wade ruling should have been against Roe and that if Congress subsequently passed a law that made abortion legal (of course with some restrictions) it would be struck down because there are no words in the original document. Then the remaining controlling legal authority (thanks Al Gore for that one) would be these words:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."

Then, we'd be right back where Roe was before she filed the lawsuit. Sounds to me from a strict constructionist point of view that another amendment would have to be ratified to make legalized abortion the law of the land.

Yes, Roe should be overturned, and yes, it would take a constitutional amendment to make legalized abortion the national law of the United States (just as was done with Prohibition). As for Congress passing laws, there are some things to note. First, it's rare for Congress to pass a law making something legal, since everything is legal unless somebody bans it. What it would really be doing is preempting state laws that ban abortion, and that would set up a whole different set of issues. Unlike state governments, Congress only has enumerated powers. It doesn't have a Tenth Amendment equivalent giving it broad, general powers. Could it get tangled up in the issue? Yes, but only in accordance with its enumerated powers, such as its power to regulate interstate commerce. That limits things a bit. Could they pass laws dealing with people who cross state lines to get abortions? Absolutely.

Second, it would be very tough for Congress to pull together a consensus to preempt state abortion restrictions. If Democrats took control of the House, they might be able to pass something, but they'd need a colossal Senate majority to do it. That's not going to happen anytime soon.

As a practical matter, overturning Roe would turn the issue back over to state governments. Some would undoubtedly ban it. Some wouldn't. Many would do something in between. Depending on who controls Congress, I could see a federal law dealing with people who cross state lines for abortions, but that's about it.