What do we do about the activist judge problem?

With all of the unaccountable activist judges appointed for life, is the judiciary an unrepairable flaw in the founding father's system? Did they mess up?

retire them. permanently

as if there are no conservative activists judges, like scalia, who openly applied double standards in all his rulings

Fuck off faggot. Scalia ruled based on the text of the Constitution.

post three examples

scalia wasn't activist, he was just a pussy that bitched out when there were hard decisions

activist means you're seeking a particular outcome in your rulings affect on the law rather than making an appropriate ruling for the case at hand

non-originalists are the problem

we need nine of Thomas

macdonald v chicago is one

he incorporated the 2nd amendment through the due process clause rather than through privileges and immunities which is how it was supposed to be incorporated through

How much is George Soros paying you to post here faggot?

>is the judiciary an unrepairable flaw in the founding father's system?
No. The Judiciary stole it's power in the case Marbury v Madison.

>macdonald v chicago
The 14th amendment is what enforces constitutional rights in the States. The pivileges and immunities clause just keeps a state from discriminating against the citizens of another.

Truth.

Absolutely false. You can't honestly think the Slaughterhouse ruling was correct... Incorporation was always supposed to be through privileges and immunities but the court hard vetoed that through their activism. Then they conjured up this fiction of substantive due process when the DPC was always supposed to be a mere procedural guarantee.

NERD FIIIIIIIIIIGHT

And Thomas Jefferson's opinion on the ruling to make clear this was never the founder's intentions:

>You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

My lawyer friend was telling me about it and showed me some criticism of him in the harvard law review, but I forget where it is now.

There was one I remember about prayer in schools (hopefully Im remembering it right). He said it was fine for public schools to make students pray christian prayers because the constitution says the right to practice whatever religion means that you SHOULD practice religion. But then on another ruling, he said a jewish person who wanted to be able to drink wine on certain holidays in religious ceremonies still wouldnt be allowed to because he lived in a dry county

suck my dick, this is cancer turning Sup Forums into a hug box. confront what I say (which wasnt even a very strong claim) or fuck off

Line them up against a wall.

Physical removal sort to speak


>just open the House on Un-American activities and accuse them of treason

I guess Sup Forums is embracing treason and betraying the US now ?

I notice you don't deny you were paid to post here.

Im embrassing the mass murder of leftists the constitution is dead and the US is over.

I hope thomas doesn't kick the bucket too soon. Will be hard to replace him.

Sotomayor is treasonous by blatantly disregarding the original meaning of the Constitution. She should absolutely be impeached.

They didn't mess up. No one could have predicted the complete and total abandonment of respect, decorum, and civic duty in the name of political bullshit. To answer your title question: REPEAL ARTICLE III.

>asked for 3 examples
>comes up with 1 questionable example

rekt

Then Ill be explicit and deny it. We both know you dont have any evidence any way

>Did they mess up?

The system is fine, it's dependent on citizens not being fucking stupid, which has unfortunately happened.

2 examples, but its pointless to imply that they're questionable. Both sides of the ruling think the other is a misinterpretation of the law, of course its questionable

>Incorporation was always supposed to be through privileges and immunities
>Incorporation was always supposed to be
>supposed to be
Nigger I'm just stating how it is. Besides: "No state shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."

The right to bear arms is a liberty, which is why the Court states: "The right to keep and bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee, not a prohibition that could be ignored as long as the States legislated in an evenhanded manner," and hence why its covered by the DPC.

Law is serious business.

CTR aka C R E W

Say hi the that faggot David Brock for us. I hope the .03 was worth it.

I can't believe the one female judge called it a muslim ban
It can't get anymore obvious that she is a peice of shit judge
fuck these judges need to be purged

What about when we get a judge like Roberts? We thought we were getting a Constitutionalist and then all the sudden Obamacare is a TAX.

3 Examples of sotomayor 'disregarding the original meaning of the constitution'?

Crap, was meant for the other guy.

That Trump is criticizing them and not being able to do anything (and you can only babycry about it) is the proof that the founding fathers knew what they were doing.

worthless fucking leaf

We have to mass murder leftists that's all user

He must be black mailed somehow

How much do they pay you per post? You must be up to at least a quarter just in this thread alone.

I think you may be right.

obama did the same thing, he criticized the Supreme Court. but know one said anything.

Its only bad when Trump does it.

God damn why were the Founding Fathers so fucking based?

Proof that im disinfo? If you dont have any, fuck off.

You just distract everyone from real discussion. Sup Forums is so far up trumps ass that we are losing our ability to be critical. total fucking cancer

then why the fuck would you make such an inane post

we're talking about judicial activism

any invocation of substantive due process is inherently activist because sub due is a fucking fiction invented by living constitutionalists

You are a troll. No one wants you here, but at least you responding to all these posts is draining money from Brock and Soros. You should be ashamed of yourself turning your back on your country.

Fuck off you brain dead faggot, save it for AM radio

Honorable Membas....FACK YOU! RAAACIST! RAAACIST!

3 examples where Sotomayor did NOT disregard the original meaning of the constitution?

Does saying she will take her ethnicity into account in her rulings count?

Where lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court a mistake? Is Ruth Bader Ginsburg being propped up like Weekend At Bernies?

Scalia was probably the least activist judge on the court alongside Thomas. Sure, I don't agree with all his decisions but I'm willing to assume he voted the way he did based on jurisprudence (Raich was a disaster, but anyway).

What's ironic is that the lifetime appointments were going to protect the court from political influence, because a judge wouldn't have to seek re-election or curry favor with anyone. The problem started arising when the political parties intentionally started appointing very politicized and opinionated judges.

The more I read about the founding fathers and Thomas Jefferson in general the more blown away I am by how smart they were. Just about everything that's happening today would disgust them. There is always a quote one of them said that can be perfectly applied to some type of injustice that happened in the present day.

the nose knows

>sub due is a fucking fiction invented by living constitutionalists
That's correct and Scalia railed against this on a number of occasions. However he still relied to a certain extent on stare decisis which purportedly guided his decision in Raich.

Sotomayor is a Kike

Scalia was one of the worst judges in history. He deserved a bullet to the head.

But here is the problem, both the left and right have activist judges; the whole 'individuals get to have unrestrictive ownership of guns' has been a recent invention for example, just read the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

At best you can claim that the federal government should have no standing army as a standing militia aka an army is the purview of the state and thus up to the state to regulate that militia which acts as a counter balance if the federal government becomes too strong. What we've seen is the right expand the scope of what the 2nd amendment covers but screams bloody murder when judges did the same sort of textual Gnosticism when it came to abortion and gay marriage.

For me, if I was a judge I wouldn't have ruled in favour of abortion nor same sex marriage or the individuals right to bare arms - you either constantly keep to what the text says or otherwise it becomes the circus where both sides accuse each other of judicial activism.

It says, the right of the PEOPLE, not the right of the states or the right of militias. You clearly don't know how to read. Where do morons like you come from? This is the type of thing I'd expect an Aussie to say, not a proud New Zealander.

Ginsburg ought to recuse herself from any cases involving Trump as a litigant:

>I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president … For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that,

She won't, of course, but this is why judges are supposed to shut the fuck up about politics.

The founders really had some absolutely awe-inspiring foresight. Jefferson is my particular favorite. His views on clergy, urbanization, and banking are all spot on. The corruption of the University of Virginia legitimately makes me fucking angry.

>'individuals get to have unrestrictive ownership of guns'

No one has ever suggested that nor has any Supreme Court ever upheld such a view. There has always been limitation to this particular right, both in American and English Common Law.

>At best you can claim that the federal government should have no standing army

Except the Constitution specifically grants Congress the power to raise an army. The 2nd Amendment is very simple, it guarantees the individual right to keep and bear arms. The prefatory clause doesn't change that, and Heller proved that with an exhaustive legal and historical overview. Really, just read Heller then get back to me, because you honestly can't expect us to believe this age old leftist lunacy when the 2nd Amendment and its history is literally clear and crystal. It has always guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms including for purposes of self-defense unrelated to militia service.

>For me, if I was a judge I wouldn't have ruled in favour of abortion nor same sex marriage or the individuals right to bare arms - you either constantly keep to what the text says or otherwise it becomes the circus where both sides accuse each other of judicial activism.

You don't rule for or against same sex marriage or abortion, you simply rule that these particular matters are not mentioned in the Constitution and are thus States' rights issues, as they had always been. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled on its meaning one single time (in Heller), and that ruling re-affirmed the sole interpretation that this amendment had had since the founding, nothing changed. It is literally impossible to interpret this amendment in any other way.

This is true, Scalia sucked ass.

Unfortunately, we need someone just like him in order to maintain balance in the court.

Well, anyways, here's hoping Justice Kennedy lives forever. Cause when he dies, the balance will be fucked up and I don't want to see either side gain complete power.

Kill yourself kike. Too bad ur little demon Jewess will go soon :)

It is clear that you lack reading comprehension:

Statement: A well regulated Militia

Purpose: being necessary to the security of a free State

Referring those who are in the militia: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

What the federal government cannot do: shall not be infringed.

Really, there are commas there for a reason - stop skipping the pars you don't like and taking what you like out of context without any attempt to ask how that part fits into the larger sentence.

>Referring those who are in the militia

Wrong.

This has been gone over many times. The 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. Any other interpretation is wrong. They must use commas differently in New Zealand because you are dead wrong.

Sup Forums is afraid of contrary opions, they chimp out and are no different from sjws on tumblr only the rightwing version of it.

>unironically saying rightwing

fuck off retard.

Suspend civil rights for a year because of some "emergency", martial court all of these traitors during this time.

It's a little amazing they didn't make islam illegal.