Appointing Supreme Court justices that interpret the Constitution and don't overreach.

 

That's never going to happen. I'll never understand why people believe that or word it like this. Each Supreme Court justice believes they are interpreting the constitution correctly.

 

The better wording is "he will appoint people to be on the Supreme Court that fall in line with my beliefs."

Not sure. I hope I am wrong and he can prove to be a good president.

Pretty simple. I'll also start a thread for the reverse so if you don't have anything nice to say head over there.

 

For me, I absolutely think Trump has the potential to cross party lines and work with both sides. He is by no means a conservative and has a long history of supporting both Republican and Democratic politicians. I think there is potential there and that gives me hope!

 

I agree with this.

Focus on economic, business and international trade issues. Focus on homeland security.

That's never going to happen. I'll never understand why people believe that or word it like this. Each Supreme Court justice believes they are interpreting the constitution correctly.

 

The better wording is "he will appoint people to be on the Supreme Court that fall in line with my beliefs."

 

I don't think it should be based on beliefs, although I think it has come to that over the last few decades (from Presidents from both parties). I'm sticking with my original wording because I believe that it is how it is supposed to work.

That's never going to happen. I'll never understand why people believe that or word it like this. Each Supreme Court justice believes they are interpreting the constitution correctly.

 

The better wording is "he will appoint people to be on the Supreme Court that fall in line with my beliefs."

 

Not necessarily, we want justices who understand their primary role is to determine if a law violates the constitution, not issue rulings which essentially create a law. Creating legislation is the duty of congress, not the supreme court. When the courts can both create and interpret laws, there is no longer a balance of powers.

 

There was an interview released around the time of the confirmation hearings of Justice Sotomayor where she came right out and said the role of the courts is to create legislation. After saying, she remembered she was being video taped and attempted to down play it but her facil expression gave away her view on the subject.

I don't think it should be based on beliefs, although I think it has come to that over the last few decades (from Presidents from both parties). I'm sticking with my original wording because I believe that it is how it is supposed to work.

 

Original wording or intent?

 

Originally part of the population was counted in fractions. Later, it was deemed that they were actual people and legally made citizens. The actual wording wouldn't have allowed for that. The intent of the American Republic did.

..that he's going to Make America Great Again and I will understand what that means. Because in all honesty that saying bothered me a lot because we are a great country and always have been. Please define Great for me. I have a feeling we all think it is different. I am not being sarcastic, but I do expect his supporters to really think that a Democrat doesn't know.

Original wording or intent?

 

Originally part of the population was counted in fractions. Later, it was deemed that they were actual people and legally made citizens. The actual wording wouldn't have allowed for that. The intent of the American Republic did.

 

I apologize if I don't understand your response. My reference to "original wording" was my simple statement in post #3.

I apologize if I don't understand your response. My reference to "original wording" was my simple statement in post #3.

 

My apologies. I had only read the text I quoted.

 

I, like you, don't care for legislating from the bench. But I see that phrase a lot and then the phrase of original wording of the Constitution. I think interpretation has to take place just as you stated in Post #3.

 

Sorry for my misunderstanding. :thumb:

My apologies. I had only read the text I quoted.

 

I, like you, don't care for legislating from the bench. But I see that phrase a lot and then the phrase of original wording of the Constitution. I think interpretation has to take place just as you stated in Post #3.

 

Sorry for my misunderstanding. :thumb:

 

...and that is why I deliberately did not use the phrase "legislating from the bench" because it has different meanings for everyone! I thought "overreaching" was better.

..that he's going to Make America Great Again and I will understand what that means. Because in all honesty that saying bothered me a lot because we are a great country and always have been. Please define Great for me. I have a feeling we all think it is different. I am not being sarcastic, but I do expect his supporters to really think that a Democrat doesn't know.

 

We are losing in alot of categories to other countries around the world.

We are losing in alot of categories to other countries around the world.

 

and what dos that mean? What do we compare ourselves to besides maybe education which is not comparing apples to apples?

and what dos that mean? What do we compare ourselves to besides maybe education which is not comparing apples to apples?

 

A few explicit words. Worth the three minutes.

 

A few explicit words. Worth the three minutes.

 

 

When was it the last greatest country in the world in your estimation?