They Must Be Democrats
September 9th, 2008 by jack
A very frightening Rasmussen poll says that, “60% of Voters Say Supreme Court Should Base Rulings on Constitution.”
What the H-E-double-hockey-sticks do the other 40% think the Supreme Court should base its rulings on? That 40% must be Democrats.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 9th, 2008 at 4:32 pm and is filed under Judiciary. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 9th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
A very thoughtful deduction, indeed!
September 9th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Very interesting read, thanks jack..
The other 40%, the EU constitution of course..
September 9th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Duh. The other 40% are Dominionists who think Supreme Court rulings should be based on Biblical law. Silly Jack
September 9th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
“2* Should the Supreme Court make decisions based on what’s written in the Constitution and legal precedents or should it be guided mostly by a sense of fairness and justice?”
That’s a lame question. this is why polls are sooooo bad. They forced people into a either/or choice. the implication is that 40% don’t think decisions should be based on the constitution, which is really incorrect. they simply say that a sense of fairness and justice is possibly more important or they feel it is important to them. a rating of the importance of each of these criteria could be used to make this statement, not a forced choice. what’s more telling is that nearly two thirds think that justices have their own political agenda.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
David?! No, no, no, no, no. It’s supposed to be Jonathan that comes in here trolling.
Never heard of Dominionists. But then, I do owe you thanks for putting me on to Focus on the Family, so I’ll look up Dominionists now.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
El Jefe, that is still a problem. The Supreme Court is supposed to rule based on the Constitution. If a law is unfair, but constitutional, then it needs to be changed by the legislature, not by the judiciary.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
sure, but there is often conflicting interpretations and precedent. this may have made “fairness and justice” more salient to some, not more important. plus, it could be spun that most of the population thinks that “justice and fairness” are important not qualities in supreme court justices. it’s a bs quesiton.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
“this may have made ‘fairness and justice’ more salient to some, not more important.”
Uh, check the first synonym for salient: important.
Anyway, we can agree that it was a poorly worded question.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
lol…d’oh. thanks for the correction. now i understand my sat discrepancy. i meant to say more at the forefront of the mind. anyway, yeah, bad question.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
What I might like to point out is that the SCOTUS ought not to think about fairness and justice, but what the constitution says. If they base what they decide on the constitution, they do what they are instructed by the constitution. If they think that the constitution is not fair and just, there is a mechanism for changing the constitution, and it does not involve the court.
The judges of courts should always be studying the constitution and the law in their decisions, there is a mechanism for having “fairness and justice” outside that path, even if the constitution is too slow in changing. It is called the jury. Because trial by jury is a right, then juries can nullify a law if they all return not guilty any time someone is tried for breaking the law. A judge could instruct a jury to bring a guilty verdict, but if they bring a not guilty it stands. Jury nullification is often presented as “not an option” by judges, but judges have no way to force a jury to convict if the jury decides they will not convict.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:58 am
“What I might like to point out is that the SCOTUS ought not to think about fairness and justice, but what the constitution says.”
DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING, DING,
Step right up sir, WE HAVE A WINNER!!!
That is the right answer!!!! Brian, have a cigar and a beer. hmmmm. You don’t drink or smoke. OK, I’ll have the beer and the cigar, you watch.
What is ‘fair’ to some is not to others. The written word of the constitution is a far less subjective artifice that what is ‘fair’. If the court would stick to interpreting the law, through the lens of the constitution, instead of forays into social engineering the country would benefit.
September 10th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
That’s funny. The jury has to be fair minded but the judges don’t. The other 40% are either socialistic atheists or the members of equality loudoun.
The constitution is a “build it” manual. Shortcut it by skipping steps or not reading it end to end, your project looks like the first teleportation trial with a baboon in the movie “The Fly”-inside out and all screwed up. The problem being that people feel that the constitution can only be interpreted by lawyers. It was desined to be read and understood by common man; just like the 10 Commandments! Should make the SCOTUS job real easy,no?
September 10th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Jacob,
You can buy me a diet root beer, and a smoked sausage.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
“The other 40% are either socialistic atheists or the members of equality loudoun.”
You’re being redundant.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Brian,
Deal. Things are nuts at the house right now, but when it all settles down, I will get my hands some some very, very good root beer (diet) and some most excellent sausage. Actually I think I will get several kinds, bratwurst, kielbasa, Italian sweet or Spicy. You might have to tolerate some of the other characters having beer other than root.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Don’t forget the Schnitzengruben.
September 11th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
You’re right, Jack.
Jacob,
I might not be a winner but I too would like a wiener….and wine. I take it you love Brian more then the rest of your buds, huh?
September 12th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
“Things are nuts at the house right now, but when it all settles down, I will get my hands some ….most excellent sausage. Actually I think I will get several kinds, bratwurst, kielbasa, Italian sweet or Spicy.”
“Don’t forget the Schnitzengruben.”
“I might not be a winner but I too would like a wiener”
ROFL! this discussion certainly took a turn, it sounds private and craig-like. I’ll let you all be.
September 12th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
ROFL!!!!!!