Posted on 10/14/2018 11:21:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
I’m with you - them concern trolls just can’t help themselves...I’m sure his conversations with Collins were very carefully worded as he knew she had a bit of control as a possible “no” vote....some merely expressed historical fact w/o mentioning what may occur in the future...with the proper argument, SCOTUS may go all “Dred Scott” over at least some of Roe vs. Wade....
Oh good grief. It’s therein black and white in article III - the power to try all cases under the Constitution. And if you still can’t get a clue, read the 78th
Federalist Paper which discusses the intent of the drafters in great detail.
This whole argument M v M made up a power not granted is the silliest bit of utter idiotic nonsense put about. You make yourself a raving lunatic by repeating it. You might as well say that the sun doesn’t rise.
The author certainly understands that at the Court(s) of Appeals, most decisions merely affirm or reverse decisions from the lower court, usually with little to no explanation. So 93% of the 93% were simply affirming/reversing what the lower court ruled. They’re not constitutional challenges that would possibly have shown marked contrasts between Kavanaugh and Garland.
He will never forget what the dems did to him. That said, I fully expect to not like some of his opinions. That’s just the way it goes with Justices sometimes. In the meantime, I’m going to wait and see.
I don't know 100% what kind of justice he will be, and neither do you.
All levels of the judiciary are obliged to follow precedent...except for the Supremes. That's the way it's supposed to be. It means nothing else.
You don’t have to be a jerk.
I know about it in the Federalist papers.
I just was asking what part of Article III you were referring to because I like to research and continually educate myself and learn from others. And “reason” things out...
Glad to know anyone who asks you a question about a statement you made is a lunatic.
Calm down. Eat some fiber.
But, the question for the founders was to whom do you trust the power to declare acts unconstitutional - the Legislature as some would maintain. Imagine our laws without the restraint of a Supreme Court reviewing whether various laws passed by Congress transgressed Consitutional limits. We woul all be baking cakes for LGBTWQSPVrs
I have never connected Roe to MvsM.
It’s just the opposite. I think Roe NEEDS judicial Review. That’s the only way to get rid of it. In my opinion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.