Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBellamy
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Or specifically legislating from the bench. What Republicans object to is exactly that. The judges we want are originalists. This means that the judges are supposed to interpret the law according to the intent of the original writers of the law and if they have to go that far back, what the writers of the Constitution meant when they wrote it. We don't want textualists, who interpret the law as if written contemporaneously, according to what the words mean now. Democrats like those because Democrats are cowardly and lazy. Allow me to explain:
If you have a originalist judicial system, that forces the lawmakers to be on the ball. They have to carefully consider their legislation and they have to update it. Very importantly they have to debate it and take a public stance. That's because the Supreme Court isn't going to go hmmm well they could have meant this or that and then jump through some hoops to keep the law valid. They're going to say your law is defective and now rewrite it or it doesn't apply.
|
OK so you also affirm that we should
repeal all amendments besides the first 10? Or are you against the bill of rights too?
Although I find any of these arguments to be dubious because just a few pages ago you said the opposite of ALL of this, and said that you wanted the republicans to appoint judges because they are the ones that protect the sanctity of life.
This stands in stark contrast to everything you wrote in your recent post :
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackBellamy
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
This is why I and other Republicans object to Roe v. Wade. Not because it legalized abortion. No one in their right mind understands abortion can be completely banned. It's because it legalized abortion for convenience as a matter of privacy and said yes this is Constitutional and proper. We disagree. If you want to have your abortions you need to come up with a better reason
|