58% of Americans say they'd like to see the President nominate someone to the Supreme Court

[Shadow Wolf]

So do I. That doesn't change my statement.

You can't resort to the "original intent" interpretation while adhering to the "living document" interpretation. The former is static, while the later is changing. Jefferson though it should be made anew every 20 years, and James Madison agreed with this to avoid every generation being thrust into political tensions and hostilities over what the dead-and-gone saw as appropriate for their own times. It's actually extremely progressive when you think about it, but also potentially extremely dangerous at the same time.
Personally, I saw we desperately need to readdress it because electronic communications did not exist back then, they had slow-loading muskets back then, troop quartering just is not a thing anymore (and who is going to say no with a gun pointed at them?), and clearly we need to readdress probably cause, reasonable suspicion, and other things pertaining to law enforcement that were just not an issue then like they are now (we didn't have the "war" or fear of drugs back then, either).

 

[Underhill]

Another perspective on who we want nominating & who we want becoming USSC justices......
Consider the following item.....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2016/03/05/probable-cause/
We see warrantless (they claim otherwise, but the searches do lack specific warrants) searches....extremely violent ones.
This happens under the authority of the DC mayor, Muriel E. Bowser.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e57656-4b64-11e5-84df-923b3ef1a64b_story.html
Consider also that Bill Clinton sought these same abridgements of civil liberties, & more.
And that Hillary worked with him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102588.html

To dislike Trump is perfectly reasonable.
There are many reasons to do so.
But be careful whom you vote for... the Democratic party has a mixed record on civil liberties.
And Hillary is as establishment as they come.....she might be even worse than Trump.

The problem with that logic is that all presidents push those boundaries. You remember all the stuff Bush did? Now people are making the same claims of Obama.

This was expected, thus the separation of powers...

 

[Mister Emu]

You can't resort to the "original intent" interpretation while adhering to the "living document" interpretation.

I said nothing about interpretation. Offering a "living interpretation" is the surrender of intellectual honesty and integrity to agenda.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem with that logic is that all presidents push those boundaries.

I don't see the logical problem of looking at her record, expecting more of the same, & seeing the dangers posed.

 

[Underhill]

I don't see the logical problem of looking at her record, expecting more of the same, & seeing the dangers posed.

It's not. But in these situations we need perspective. Demonizing someone for following the status quo, or being married to someone who follows the status quo, isn't very realistic. I would be amazed if any of the candidates were an improvement on the current administration.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not. But in these situations we need perspective. Demonizing someone for following the status quo, or being married to someone who follows the status quo, isn't very realistic. I would be amazed if any of the candidates were an improvement on the current administration.

Hillary was more than just married to Bill.
They campaigned as establishing an unprecedented co-presidency.
She assumed great power, eg, she was the driving force behind Hillarycare.
But her own congressional record matters more than that with Bill.

We all have different values & agendas.
By mine, the current admin is pretty bad (but not entirely so) for a variety of reasons.
- The wars
- Increased surveillance
- Poor economic policies
Hillary portends more of the same.
Trump looks likely to be an improvement.