Making the Supreme Court confirmation less political

[_canpakes]

The problem with the Court and politics is as always Liberalism.
Liberals don't want to follow the law and the constitution, while conservatives justices are the only ones left who do.
Leftists think that whatever pet ideology they have is good is the same thing as good law, when it's not.

Just look at the recent gun cases the Supreme Court has handled. The leftist judges actually VOTED AGAINST the Constitutional and Human Natural Rights of Americans. And it was only the remaining and dominant Conservative justices being the majority that stopped their Leftist Fascism against the people.

As to "term limits"... I'm very much for them in ALL political and government positions.
It would greatly help eliminate corruption, and abuse of power.
As an example, no elected or government official should be allowed to serve more than two 4 year terms together, and then they must leave.
They CAN come back and serve if they are really wanted, and as many times as wanted, but they must not serve for one term, and can only serve for two consecutive terms. This is how it should be for President, the Supreme Court, or any Federal Government position.
This country is being corrupted because liberals are gaining more and more power and are using and abusing that power in ways that this country was not founded on. If officials are held accountable by the people more, this corruption and abuse of power would occur much less.

None of this has anything to do with the OP. All of it ignores the fact that for this situation conservatives and Republicans are aiming to buck the Constitution.

[_MeDotOrg]

The problem with the Court and politics is as always Liberalism.
Liberals don't want to follow the law and the constitution, while conservatives justices are the only ones left who do.
Leftists think that whatever pet ideology they have is good is the same thing as good law, when it's not.

Just look at the recent gun cases the Supreme Court has handled. The leftist judges actually VOTED AGAINST the Constitutional and Human Natural Rights of Americans. And it was only the remaining and dominant Conservative justices being the majority that stopped their Leftist Fascism against the people.

As to "term limits"... I'm very much for them in ALL political and government positions.
It would greatly help eliminate corruption, and abuse of power.
As an example, no elected or government official should be allowed to serve more than two 4 year terms together, and then they must leave.
They CAN come back and serve if they are really wanted, and as many times as wanted, but they must not serve for one term, and can only serve for two consecutive terms. This is how it should be for President, the Supreme Court, or any Federal Government position.
This country is being corrupted because liberals are gaining more and more power and are using and abusing that power in ways that this country was not founded on. If officials are held accountable by the people more, this corruption and abuse of power would occur much less.

Well first, let's take the easy one: Term Limits. Term Limits are being suggested NOT because Judges become more corrupt the longer they stay on the Court. Term limits are suggested as a way of giving each Presidential term an equal say in appointing judges.

So as a strict constructionist, ldsfaqs, please tell me what the words 'a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' mean?

[_ldsfaqs]

Well first, let's take the easy one: Term Limits. Term Limits are being suggested NOT because Judges become more corrupt the longer they stay on the Court. Term limits are suggested as a way of giving each Presidential term an equal say in appointing judges.

So as a strict constructionist, ldsfaqs, please tell me what the words 'a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' mean?

Yes, but one thing does not mean the exclusion of another. There are multi-reasons for it. So, stop using a little truth to lie.

Simple.... when they were arguing the Constitution, there were the state'ists and the freedomists.
The state wanted to ensure the state had some power and the freedom lovers wanted to ensure the people had some power.
Thus to combine the "rights" of the two, the government would be in charge of Militia, i.e. being able to organize and collect arms for the interests of the government (a.k.a. the people), and the freedom lovers who wanted to ensure the people were always allowed to be armed to balance the two.

The "Militia" was the government could collect arms and supply's and then call up the people who were also generally armed to defend the interests of the states, or the country. If the right to be armed only referred to the Militia, then the 2nd Amendment would have said, the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But it doesn't say that. If they were "ignoring" personal rights, that the 2nd Amendment only applied to the Militia, then that's what it would have said.

It takes mental gymnastics to try and claim the 2nd Amendment somehow only applied to Militias. Especially given the fact that organized entity's (i.e. government, not speaking businesses which are people owned) don't have "rights" in the Constitutional sense, but people do. It's further mental gymnastics because in reading the history of the events, statements of the founders, letters, speeches etc. it is utterly clear that they were giving the right to bear personal arms to the people by the 2nd Amendment. In fact, part of the entire point of the Constitution is "Individual Liberty" and the preserving of it against government tyranny, i.e. the peoples OWN government. That was the entire point of the Revolutionary War, a Rebellion against Britain for more personal freedoms and representation.

That you liberals can't comprehend these simple things is fascinating. Liberal fascist programing into socialism/communism/fascism is deep in American society today.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[_canpakes]

Maybe faqs can give us his thoughts on the 'well regulated' part. That ought to be interesting.

[_MeDotOrg]

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

I think the applicable definition to our discussion is the first definition.

We have a well-regulated Militia. It's called the National Guard.

[_Some Schmo]

Here faqs... have a lollipop:



(I always find if you give kids a lollipop, they'll shut the hell up.)

[_subgenius]

Well first, let's take the easy one: Term Limits. Term Limits are being suggested NOT because Judges become more corrupt the longer they stay on the Court. Term limits are suggested as a way of giving each Presidential term an equal say in appointing judges.

It is interesting, to me, that a Judge is seemingly a reflection of the President whom appoints said Judge. That is to say, it seems that the intent of the Supreme Court is to be free from any political philosophy...The Law being blind...being completely unable to see left or right.
So, on the one hand, the OP making a seemingly innocuous appeal based on the assumption that Lady Justice peeks out from under her blindfold is not really a solution but rather is a blatant endorsement of political corruption within the Justice system.

Being able to determine whether a Judge is liberal or conservative should be grounds for dismissal of said Judge.

So as a strict constructionist, ldsfaqs, please tell me what the words 'a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state' mean?

Yar, i have to balk at this one...."strict constructionist" is modern legal-speak for "viewed through the political party lens".

[_subgenius]

(I always find if you give kids a lollipop, they'll shut the hell up.)

settle down schmo....you are uncomfortably close to a pedophile-style-posting...

[_Some Schmo]

(I always find if you give kids a lollipop, they'll shut the hell up.)

settle down schmo....you are uncomfortably close to a pedophile-style-posting...

I wonder why this comment from you doesn't surprise me at all.

[Guest]

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

I think the applicable definition to our discussion is the first definition.

We have a well-regulated Militia. It's called the National Guard.

To be fair, you should be citing a definition that was contemporary to the authors of the Constitution. Below is a 1755 dictionary, which may be closer in meaning than a 2016 dictionary.

http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/

image of page with definition noted:
http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?pa ... 070&i=1295

Milítia. n.s. [Latin.] The trainbands; the standing force of a nation.

Let any prince think soberly of his forces, except his militia be good and valiant soldiers. Bacon's Essays, № 30.

The militia was so settled by law, that a sudden army could be drawn together. Clarendon.

Unnumbered spirits round thee fly,
The light militia of the lower sky. Pope's Rape of the Lock.

It should be noted that "trainbands" are civilian soldiers, which may be akin to a national guard, depending on any distinction between "government soldier" and "citizen soldier" one may care make. I believe the "trainbands" of old were something altogether different from the National Guard.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trainband