crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island

Another challenge to the liberals who pollute this venue.
"There is no constitutional provision for the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of any law, federal, state or local."
Please refute this. You can't.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

----------------
I believe you misunderstand what I am saying. I do not use the words, "emotion" or "personal feelings". I use the words, conscience, morality, and justice.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

----------------------
"As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution." https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx

I never said that Roe v Wade was moral, or the correct legal decision. Perhaps one day, the Supreme Court may re-interpret that decision and reverse itself. But I would not expect Neil Gorsuch to see the law that way, which is the basic point that I am trying to make.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

Of course, law and morality are inseparable and morality serves as the basis for any legal/political system.... it is our morality of something that fashions any decision we make ... a law is a moral claim, a moral imperative, a moral justification...

Why would the vast majority of the society feel any sense of moral obligation to conform to the law’s that dictates? What is a legal norm if not a moral command, constraining the behavior of the citizens/residents, of whichever state/society, upon whom the law (moral code) is imposed?

Law is the mechanism (usually a set of norms/rules with corresponding sanctions) by which we define interpersonal relations. Morality is the categorization of human behaviors as “good” and “bad”, right???

And Law does not cease to be law based upon one or another moral criticisms, right?? It is after all made law based originally on the right or wrong of a moral interpretation or moral truth or authority....

Any moral claims, which claim to be objectively true, are false. There is no objective moral truth or authority in law. Following the laws as previously measured and made law is the objective evaluation used later in deterring or defending the validity of the law and to keep uniformity in the laws that govern all.. Not just a chosen selection, at least ideally..In other words once made law that is our moral foundation to follow and not allow exceptions.. if we did in effect we would be abrogating the very law we introduced..

That's where all the legal loop holes lay..

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

Problems happen when immoral people write immoral law for immoral people; who expect to be above the law.
Our basis for moral law; WAS the Bible and the Common Law. Expressed in the Magna Carta.
Is this taught in our schools anymore?
Of course it is not.

Ricko Loc: Florida

ACP-45-Do not believe I did. There is no place for personal feelings, conscience, morality on the SCOTUS. It is all about the law. Judges must enforce the law as written even if , in their hearts, it does not seem right. A good judge has to leave his personal desires at home, interpret the law and apply same . If the law is ambiguous it needs to be re-written. I can understand the dilemma in which judges find themselves in being forced to apply the law and render a decision which contradicts their beliefs, conscience, morality. etc. That is why being a good judge has to be a gut wrenching job. America First !!!

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

America was under direct attack by a reconizable enemy. Even majority of the Japanese held understood and agreed.
It was not detention that was under question, it was the poor conditions and treatment, we LA ked the ability to "quickly " vet in 1940's

If Iran , Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority attacked America, I would hope our government would detain every non vetted "Muslim " today.

Today with advanced technology we have advanced the ability to "vet", unlike the 40's.

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

oldroy Loc: Western Kansas (No longer in hiding)

Have you managed to hear this YouTube video? I think that the man in it has found a new member of his group because I have thought for a long time that there is a pile of crap being pitched by the Democrats in their attempt to keep Gorsuch out of the Court. The fact that they used Al Franken in their attempt to "expose" him tells me a lot. Hey, Franken didn't legally win his election to the Senate the first time. Check up on that election if you think I am wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwY-uV9l-cA

RETW Loc: Washington

I watched both films, and I am also concerned. This is clear there is something more here than what meets the eye. Seems to me a 3rd grader would know what is right in this case.

Judge Gorsuch in fact, did not follow the letter of the law. And no matter what I feel about Al Frankin,
he was right to point this out to the Judge. Because there is a proviso in the law that in fact does state,
.... I"m not sure about the right words .... If applying the law, the results are so blatantly wrong or bad, this law must be swept aside. Clearly if the driver had of stayed with the trucking rig and trailer, he could have died. What I see here is a warped sense of morality coming from Grosuch.

A judge with blinders on, is not what this country needs. Replace the blinders with common sense.

Now you will have a good judge.

Senator Frankin may be a buffoon or a baboon, but he is right about this.

RETW

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

[quote=lindajoy]Of course, law and morality are inseparable and morality serves as the basis for any legal/political system.... it is our morality of something that fashions any decision we make ... a law is a moral claim, a moral imperative, a moral justification...

-----------------------
If "law and morality are inseparable, and morality serves as the basis for any legal/political system...", than how should a judge rule when there is a conflict between the two?

Clearly there is a conflict if a law is created that allows torture of prisoners, or permits a company for firing an individual who is simply taking reasonable action to preserve his own life. To put blinders on and say, sorry, that is the law, disrespects the demands upon conscience which makes us all human.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

-------------------
Thank you. I could not have said this any better.

ACP45 Loc: Rhode Island

-----------------
If you can send me a link from any youtube video where Pieczinik claims that Bush, Kissinger, or Chelsea Clinton are good, honest people, I will gladly reconsider anything that he has to say on this matter.

As to Al Franken, please don't confuse the message with the messenger. Just because Franken is a nutter, the facts in the frozen trucker case haven't magically changed. We know what happened, and how Gorsuch ruled, irrespective of the fact that Franken happened to be the one who pointed it out.

Loki Loc: Georgia

Who is that? Did Al Franken and Diane Feinstein hook up and have a kid they named FrankenStein?

chuckybrass

If you're searching for a judge that applies, try a church and seek Jesus. When you go to court, it is a place of deciding the law's judgments. In the court, you have legal and illegal. It is always nicer if the legal/illegal juncture falls at the crosspoint of right/wrong, but sometimes it just doesn't work that way. Right and wrong just don't always sit at the table of legality. It is to this end that you should actually like Gorsuch more, IMHO.