One Political PlazaSM - Home of politics
Home | Political Digest | Active Topics | Search | Login | Register | Help
Tired of the political circus into which the media has degraded?
Want to discuss politics and economics with sane people who actually understand what they are talking about?
Read this:
 

We are not some political camp blindly advocating an agenda by following a pre-set list of bullet points. Instead, we let individuals voice their opinions and back them with facts and logical reasoning.

Daily, you'll be receiving our political forum digest with the latest hottest news, analysis, discussions and some things the media simply won't report to you.

Here are just some of the things being uncovered on One Political Plaza right now:

• What hurts the economy more: the welfare or the defense spending? (The answer isn't what you thought. I guarantee it.)

• Do immigrants bring more money into the economy by being consumers or do they send more "back home"? We have some hard numbers posted.

(What if we take into account the new immigrants from Syria currently headed to the US? How does that change the immigration debate?)

• Why do politicians lie? You hear people always say that politicians are all crooks. But why is that? Why can't there be more honest politicians? Or can there? (This will surprise you, as it surprised me when I found out.)

• Is the minimum wage all about the union contracts or about actually helping those at the bottom? Does it actually help? (This will definitely change your mind about the issue.)

• Furthering LGBT equality rights through lawsuits to the point of forcing businesses to serve against their beliefs. Does that violate the rights of business owners? Or does the notion of equality trump it all?

• Will Obamacare actually solve the healthcare problem in the long run, or is just a fad that will be reversed eventually? (Some interesting arguments in favor of one of the sides. Something you probably haven't considered.)

• Join in and see for yourself. This will shock you. And it's all completely FREE!

• Let me repeat that. Since for some reason a lot of people contact us asking if the membership is really free or if there is some catch: we are a social website for people who like to discuss politics. So we don't sell anything, we don't solicit for political donations, and we don't work as a recruiting front for any party or agenda. It's as simple as that.

Enter your name and e-mail address below, and you'll be instantly added to our political mailing list distribution. Right away, you'll get access to more thought provoking content than you could imagine. And you'll get all that for free.

Don't delay! Join the best political community on the Internet.

First name:

E-mail address:

It's FREE, and you'll receive my first e-mail right away. Also, you'll get instant access to the most recent topics on our political forum: hundreds of intriguing posts from others.

(A new newsletter issue is released each week. So if you don't sign up now, you'll miss this week's digest.)

 
Main
The Supreme Court getting-it-wrong-about-getting-it-right
If you would like to post a reply, then please login (if you already have an account) or register (if you don't).
Jun 15, 2013 09:17:17   #
Yankee Clipper
 
This is a long read, 4 parts, but it worth wading through it. It gives an insight to various members of the supreme court. It exposes that the Supremes both left and right leaning base their decisions on their personal ideologies rather than the writings of the Constitution itself as they are supposed to do.


http://joemiller.us/2013/06/getting-it-wrong-about-getting-it-right/
 
Jun 15, 2013 15:25:27   #
grazeem
 
Yankee Clipper wrote:
This is a long read, 4 parts, but it worth wading through it. It gives an insight to various members of the supreme court. It exposes that the Supremes both left and right leaning base their decisions on their personal ideologies rather than the writings of the Constitution itself as they are supposed to do.


http://joemiller.us/2013/06/getting-it-wrong-about-getting-it-right/



That's where you're wrong, or at least that is where we will disagree. The Supreme Court Justice is there to "INTERPET" the Constitution.

Life experience will bring two people to two different interpretations.

You can say no that isn't correct, they are there to follow it, but like any writing, it will be read differently by two people, at two different times in history.

Why do you think there are contradictory rulings, over the century's? Interpretation!!
Jun 15, 2013 17:13:21   #
kevhurls
 
"Interpretation" says one thing to me: PARTISANSHIP. We're talking Justice here, people. Left is right and right is wrong.
Jun 15, 2013 22:57:39   #
Yankee Clipper
 
grazeem wrote:
That's where you're wrong, or at least that is where we will disagree. The Supreme Court Justice is there to "INTERPET" the Constitution.

Life experience will bring two people to two different interpretations.

You can say no that isn't correct, they are there to follow it, but like any writing, it will be read differently by two people, at two different times in history.

Why do you think there are contradictory rulings, over the century's? Interpretation!
Because some of the supreme justices thought they should rule by how they think a law should be interpreted, not how the Constitution itself addresses the issue. It's called legislating from the bench. The following link will explain it better than I can: http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/supreme-law-of-the-land/
That's where you're wrong, or at least that is whe... (show quote)
Jun 15, 2013 23:43:05   #
ABBAsFernando
 
Yankee Clipper wrote:
This is a long read, 4 parts, but it worth wading through it. It gives an insight to various members of the supreme court. It exposes that the Supremes both left and right leaning base their decisions on their personal ideologies rather than the writings of the Constitution itself as they are supposed to do.


http://joemiller.us/2013/06/getting-it-wrong-about-getting-it-right/


Communist agents or liberals who sometimes call themselves progressives are the ENEMY within. The Supreme Court has been infested with this SCUM by the Communist Party of America. Currently the official Communist Party of America is the Democratic political party. The enemy within has corrupted all levels of American society. Read how they accomplished this in the following link.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

The official American Communist Party is still at it as can be clearly seen in the news daily!


Jun 16, 2013 04:24:34   #
AuntiE (a regular here)
 
kevhurls wrote:
"Interpretation" says one thing to me: PARTISANSHIP. We're talking Justice here, people. Left is right and right is wrong.


An explanation of your last sentence, "Left is right and right is wrong." would be appreciated.
 
Jun 16, 2013 12:23:38   #
grazeem
 
Yankee wrote:

Because some of the supreme justices thought they should rule by how they think a law should be interpreted, not how the Constitution itself addresses the issue. It's called legislating from the bench.

_____________________
I looked at your link, and it is just a lot of bible thumping clap trap.

your thought "how the Constitution itself addresses the issue."

That can only be an interpretation, two people will read a sentence differently.

Example:

I have heard Robert Frost's poem "Stopping by woods on a snowy evening" described as a deep study on life and death. I don't get that at all, I read it as a man stopping and enjoying "natures majesty"

Same words, different interpretations.

It is the same with a judge or justice, where you stand depends on where you sit.
Jun 16, 2013 19:45:40   #
Yankee Clipper
 
AuntiE wrote:
An explanation of your last sentence, "Left is right and right is wrong." would be appreciated.


I see no need for an explanation, that line says all that needs to be said. That's why I didn't comment.
Jun 16, 2013 20:44:09   #
Yankee Clipper
 
grazeem wrote:
Yankee wrote:

Because some of the supreme justices thought they should rule by how they think a law should be interpreted, not how the Constitution itself addresses the issue. It's called legislating from the bench.

_____________________
I looked at your link, and it is just a lot of bible thumping clap trap. Publius-Hulda knows more about the constitution than most likely all of us on this site put together. And unless you are an idiot, you know the founding fathers used many classical rererences including the bible in their writing of the Constitution.

your thought "how the Constitution itself addresses the issue."

That can only be an interpretation, two people will read a sentence differently. There is no interpretation on how the Constitution reads, all laws and rulings are only Constitiutional if they if they follow the rule book, the Constitution, not some law's interpretation or some justice's interpretation. A good example of misinterpretation and application is the use of the commerce clause to justify whatever Congress and the Supreme Justices want to accomplish. The real intent of the law was basically to keep trade between the states open and free of crippling tariffs between them. The law was never intended to force citizens to buy health insurance.


Example:

I have heard Robert Frost's poem "Stopping by woods on a snowy evening" described as a deep study on life and death. I don't get that at all, I read it as a man stopping and enjoying "natures majesty" I haven't seen any poems that were meant to be the guiding document of a nation, have you? I thinkParadise lost would be a better example of differing opinions on the wording of a poem.

Same words, different interpretations.Except we are not talking about the Constitution, we are talking about poems.

It is the same with a judge or justice, where you stand depends on where you sit. They are supposed to rule on the words of the Constitution not whether or not their ideology agrees with the wording of the Constitution. Unfortunately most judges let their ideologies cloud their vision and neither side has clean hands.
Yankee wrote: br br Because some of the supreme j... (show quote)
Jun 16, 2013 21:35:59   #
Navysnipe
 
grazeem wrote:
Yankee wrote:

Because some of the supreme justices thought they should rule by how they think a law should be interpreted, not how the Constitution itself addresses the issue. It's called legislating from the bench.

_____________________
I looked at your link, and it is just a lot of bible thumping clap trap.

your thought "how the Constitution itself addresses the issue."

That can only be an interpretation, two people will read a sentence differently.

Example:

I have heard Robert Frost's poem "Stopping by woods on a snowy evening" described as a deep study on life and death. I don't get that at all, I read it as a man stopping and enjoying "natures majesty"

Same words, different interpretations.

It is the same with a judge or justice, where you stand depends on where you sit.
Yankee wrote: br br Because some of the supreme j... (show quote)


Did you just make a degrading comment about the Bible? How very intolerant of you. You better be careful or you may find yourself in court for a hate crime.
Jun 17, 2013 02:22:43   #
grazeem
 
If there is no interpretation, if things can only be read one way, as you say.

How come the Bible is read differently enough, for there to be, only God knows, different churches.

The Catholics have one Bible, and the Protestants another, but there are many different brands of church, using the King James Bible.

If there is only one way to read something, how can that be.

It can't.

Same with the Constitution
 
Jun 17, 2013 13:04:47   #
Yankee Clipper
 
grazeem wrote:
If there is no interpretation, if things can only be read one way, as you say.

How come the Bible is read differently enough, for there to be, only God knows, different churches.Politics!

The Catholics have one Bible, and the Protestants another, but there are many different brands of church, using the King James Bible. As far as I know most of the protestant churches us the King James Bible and there are several version of it. The King James Bible was written to satisfy King James and the English Church at that time, do we even know if the scriptures used to write the Bible are truly the word of God, no we don't. Some where written by the apostles, but an awful lot of them are credited to a Bibical figure who somewone thinks wrote them. No credibility as far as I am concerned. I honestly don't know about the Catholic Bible, when it came to be and how many vesions they had until they settled on the current one. The Morman's have their own version of things which is somewhat different than the other Christian religions.

If there is only one way to read something, how can that be.

It can't. Just because you read and interpret something s you want it to say, doesn't mean you are interpreting the true meaning of what was written.
Marxist/democrats/socialist/liberals are good a twisting the true meaning of words to fit their needs, because the original meaning and intent does not allow them to do their dirty deeds. Such as undermine the Constitution and our Constitutional Republic.


Same with the Constitution The Constitution has to be interpreted as the founding fathers intended it to be. And they didn't intend for it to be interpreted any other way. You can't change the rules at every whim just because you don't like what it says. What's the difference between a homerun hit out of the park and a foul ball hit out of the park? Sooner or later someone will rule the out of the part foul ball is the same as the homerun because it was hit out of the park we should give the hitter credit and call it a home run even though it does not fit the original definition of a fair ball home run. To not give the foul ball hitter a home run after all his ball went just as far as anyone hitting a fair ball out of the park is just not fair, and we don't want to hurt any feeling here, do we? Just another way to interpret the rules and make them read as we want by using the "out of the park" clause that's in the rule book somewhere I'm sure. Just like when the Supreme Court finds or interpets a new clause in which to make their rulings to fit their political agenda at that time.
If there is no interpretation, if things can only ... (show quote)
 
          
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2016 IDF International Technologies, Inc.