Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Supreme Court Justice nominee Liu

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Supreme Court Justice nominee Liu

    At age 39, Liu has compiled an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, top grades at both Stanford University and Yale Law School and now law professor University of California, Berkeley.

    Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That’s prompting opponents to argue that Liu is “too far outside the mainstream” to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

    “He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day,” said the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

    Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, echoed those concerns.

    “Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views … using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing.”

    Liu opponents point to a number of his writings, including a book he co-authored in 2009 called “Keeping Faith with the Constitution,” in which the authors opine about their concept of judicial interpretation.

    “Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change … as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.”

    That theme — that the Constitution’s text and principles must be adapted to changes in the world — repeats throughout the book and raises eyebrows among conservatives.



    He is right, we are getting more distant from the Constitution. Our goal should be to move closer to our guiding force, not the other way Mr. President.

  • #2
    Re: Supreme Court Justice nominee Liu

    Originally posted by ISASO
    At age 39, Liu has compiled an impressive resume: Rhodes Scholar, Supreme Court clerk, top grades at both Stanford University and Yale Law School and now law professor University of California, Berkeley.

    Liu has also aligned himself with progressive legal groups, including the American Constitution Society, where he is chairman of the board of directors. That’s prompting opponents to argue that Liu is “too far outside the mainstream” to take a seat on a court just one step below the Supreme Court of the United States.

    “He believes the Constitution is something judges can manipulate to have it say what they think culture or evolving standards of decency requires of it in a given day,” said the Senate Judiciary Committee’s top Republican Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

    Ed Whelan, a one-time clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia and now president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, echoed those concerns.

    “Liu believes that judges have the authority to impose their views … using clever verbal camouflage to disguise what they’re doing.”

    Liu opponents point to a number of his writings, including a book he co-authored in 2009 called “Keeping Faith with the Constitution,” in which the authors opine about their concept of judicial interpretation.

    “Applications of constitutional text and principles must be open to adaptation and change … as the conditions and norms of our society become ever more distant from those of the Founding generation.”

    That theme — that the Constitution’s text and principles must be adapted to changes in the world — repeats throughout the book and raises eyebrows among conservatives.



    He is right, we are getting more distant from the Constitution. Our goal should be to move closer to our guiding force, not the other way Mr. President.
    Goodwin Liu has been nominated to serve on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not the Supreme Court.

    Comment


    • #3
      But what a perfect fit for Obama's agenda of re-writing the Constitution.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by ISASO
        But what a perfect fit for Obama's agenda of re-writing the Constitution.
        Please give example where there has been a purposed change in the Constitution. I wasn't aware of any amendments before Congress. 8)
        I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

        Comment


        • #5
          dense
          –adjective,dens·er, dens·est.
          1. having the component parts closely compacted together; crowded or compact: a dense forest; dense population.
          2. stupid; slow-witted; dull.
          3. intense; extreme: dense ignorance.
          4. relatively opaque; transmitting little light, as a photographic negative, optical glass, or color.
          That rug really tied the room together.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by kcshocker11
            Originally posted by ISASO
            But what a perfect fit for Obama's agenda of re-writing the Constitution.
            Please give example where there has been a purposed change in the Constitution. I wasn't aware of any amendments before Congress. 8)
            Glenn Beck said it. It must be true... :roll:
            Wichita State, home of the All-Americans.

            Comment


            • #7
              Neither party needs amendments anymore. They just ignore it all together...
              Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
              RIP Guy Always A Shocker
              Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
              ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
              Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
              Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SubGod22
                Neither party needs amendments anymore. They just ignore it all together...
                Ridiculous comment! Anything unconstitutional would be challenged in the courts. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its unconstitutional. 8)
                I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by kcshocker11
                  Originally posted by SubGod22
                  Neither party needs amendments anymore. They just ignore it all together...
                  Ridiculous comment! Anything unconstitutional would be challenged in the courts. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its unconstitutional. 8)
                  The courts have been changing the meaning of the constitution for years as well.
                  Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
                  RIP Guy Always A Shocker
                  Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
                  ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
                  Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
                  Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by SubGod22
                    Originally posted by kcshocker11
                    Originally posted by SubGod22
                    Neither party needs amendments anymore. They just ignore it all together...
                    Ridiculous comment! Anything unconstitutional would be challenged in the courts. Just because you dont like something doesnt mean its unconstitutional. 8)
                    The courts have been changing the meaning of the constitution for years as well.
                    So you dont believe in our court system? If you believe something is unconstitutional, challenge it in the courts. If that doesnt work Congress can ammend the constitution(this has been done 27 times).

                    Again, just because you dont like something doesnt make it unconstitutional!




                    8)
                    I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by RoyalShock
                        Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.
                        don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by SB Shock
                          Originally posted by RoyalShock
                          Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.
                          don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.
                          So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)
                          I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by kcshocker11
                            Originally posted by SB Shock
                            Originally posted by RoyalShock
                            Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.
                            don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.
                            So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)
                            Address what I said, not your own agenda please.

                            BTW, it WAS NOT a tea bagger who tried to bomb NY Times Square but a naturalized Pakistani - I'm sure you and your friends are disappointed.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by SB Shock
                              Originally posted by kcshocker11
                              Originally posted by SB Shock
                              Originally posted by RoyalShock
                              Unless I'm mistaken, you (or I, or Sub, or anyone) can't challenge a law in court unless you can demonstrate that your rights have been violated (not potentially violated). And even then the court can choose whether or not to hear it.
                              don't confuse them with the facts. Remember there are no activist judges, no progressive terrorists and for the last 30 years Congress has been doing a wonderful job governing the country.
                              So how is Obama rewriting the constitution? Facts please! 8)
                              Address what I said, not your own agenda please.

                              BTW, it WAS NOT a tea bagger who tried to bomb NY Times Square but a naturalized Pakistani - I'm sure you and your friends are disappointed.
                              If you read the thread I was talking about , the statement, and comment on Obama rewriting the constitution! So whats that got to do with tea baggers, Pakistani's or whatever? 8)
                              I have come here to chew bubblegum and kickass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X