Comments by "dbergerac" (@dbergerac9632) on "Who are the women on Trump's SCOTUS short-list? Fox News breaks it down" video.

  1. The instrument of change is the amendment process.
    14
  2.  @aaronburdon221  You are quite correct. If the courts were supposed to alter the Constitution, we wouldn't really need an amendment process. Everything could be resolved by the SCOTUS adjusting the Constitution to fit the times. The Constitution begins with the words "We The People" because unlike other nations who dissolved monarchies, the US government accepts its power from the people. A nation ruled from the bottom up rather than the top down. The People accepted our constitution as a blueprint for just governance with the included Bill of Rights required for ratification. Federal power was limited by the pure text of The Constitution and further limited by the Bill Of Rights. Our nation was designed to be governed by Congress, and administered by the President with the Court to prevent either branch from exceeding their constitutional boundaries. For the last 70+ years Congress has been neglecting its authority in favor of allowing other branches to bear the responsibility. Need a war? Let the President do it. Need an amendment? Let the court do it. Our well designed ship of state has been hijacked by a professional political class never anticipated by our founders who saw government service as an inconvenient distraction from their real careers. How many people serving in office have never held an actual job? Of the rest, how many held a job that was not funded by the taxpayers? Today regulations that have the force of law are drafted by un-elected bureaucrats and powers have been granted to the federal government via The Constitution now have bizarre definitions. I would cite "Regulate Interstate Commerce" intended to prevent states from taxing each other for goods, having grown to give the Federal Government authority of every thing which includes even a component that has or might someday cross a state line. The Federal government has NO policing authority beyond its own literal property. The hundreds of agencies enforcing federal laws are doing so under either the guise of "Enforcing Taxes" or "Regulating Interstate Commerce". "Hey guys, that shoplifter just crossed a state line!" Feds: We can take it from here. The SCOTUS allowed all of this, over time, bit by bit.
    13
  3. b @frannanderson4165  The justices cannot have "plans" to reverse Constitutional Law. They can only hear the cases before them and rule on the constitutionality of a matter. There may be any number of litigants in a given year who desire to reverse a legal precedent. Litigants arguing for justice is how Jim Crow laws were abolished, (reversing a legal precedent) it is how schools became desegregated, (reversing a legal precedent) how "Miranda rights" became respected, (reversing a legal precedent) and "reversing legal precedents" sometimes happens when a case comes before the court and the Constitution is applied as written rather than as desired. How exactly DOES one argue that "The Constitution is a living document to be freely re-interpreted by the court" and then complain that the court might "Reinterpret the Constitution"? Conservatives do not desire such a free-wheeling attitude regarding our very basis for law. Conservatives believe that if you want The Constitution changed there is an amendment process for that, rather than using the SCOTUS as a substitute for legislation. I have noticed as I grew old that the left always fears what the left always does.
    6
  4.  @conspiracytheorista8988  We had a good run.
    2
  5.  @anaelena2104  In a bar, I once saw a pool cue become an "instrument of change".
    2
  6.  @firstlast-vv7vw  When there are riots in the streets and buildings attacked over the results of an election, the word for it is "revolution" and it'd be time for the constitutional government to do some self defense.
    2
  7. The President is taking eight years off from his life as a billionare to serve the country and accept abuse. We already know the RINOS, professional politicians in bed with corporate America just like the Democrats. They know that as long as they don't rock the boat, they'll all get to share in the looting.
    2
  8.  @thelastword23  A lot of people were behind Julius Caesar in much the same way.
    2
  9.  @keithpjones3259  Less than Hillary and Bill made for a few short speeches to Wall Street and Russia.
    2
  10. @Cool Hand Mark Tony Soprano made his money from legitimate solid waste business. It doesn't matter if they launder the bribes through speaking engagements or not. The people know. At least no one has rented out the Lincoln Bedroom like a family business for a long time.
    2
  11.  @markthompson4885  Except for Treason, (which is very tightly defined, having been in large part written by men who had been charged with treason) all crimes against the Constitution are defined in thousands of statutes. The Supreme Law of the Land is possibly the least protected law in the land if one considers the scope of penalties. The Executive Branch prosecutes, the Judicial Branch judges. (I am not a lawyer)
    1
  12.  @tiborcsizmadi4796  The left has demonstrated a great capacity for hypocrisy.
    1
  13.  @resilientcho1005  Extinct
    1
  14.  @bratttt100  That would have been a great idea during the primaries. Of course, the only way to vote these idiots out at this point is to vote in someone openly worse. We need to primary the traitors.
    1
  15. At least when HE claims not to remember anything, it'll be the truth.
    1