Elena Kagan, SCOTUS Rule Via Public Opinion vs Constitution

[Hagar]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Per Kagan, “Court May lose legitimacy if it ignores Public Opinion”.

So Elena, is that what rulings should be based on, Public Opinion?  Forget the Constitution?  The same document you’ve sworn to uphold?  Or did you forget about that?  What idiot nominated this idiot to the SCOTUS?  Oh yeah, I remember.  If y’all remember, several Democrats in high positions have questioned the Constitution recently.  That should concern all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.  In fact, if it doesn’t concern you, you’re extremely uninformed, and are yourself a threat to America’s future.

[Reagan]

2 hours ago, Hagar said:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

 

Per Kagan, “Court May lose legitimacy if it ignores Public Opinion”.

So Elena, is that what rulings should be based on, Public Opinion?  Forget the Constitution?  The same document you’ve sworn to uphold?  Or did you forget about that?  What idiot nominated this idiot to the SCOTUS?  Oh yeah, I remember.  If y’all remember, several Democrats in high positions have questioned the Constitution recently.  That should concern all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.  In fact, if it doesn’t concern you, you’re extremely uninformed, and are yourself a threat to America’s future.

Hagar, my friend:  She took an oath to uphold the Constitution.  If she is admitting that she is not going to uphold the Constitution, is this an impeachable offense?  There's no doubt that Sodomayor and that other clown just put on the court has the same attitude.  

[tvc184]

People often say that Courts legislate from the bench. I  usually argue the point that they do not legislate and rule only on constitutionality or the meaning or intent of a law.

In cases like this however, it is obvious that she is using a democratic opinion (vote, not party) and not the Constitution. The entire premise of having a constitutional republic with constitutional rights is so a majority cannot overcome individual rights.

And easy example is, at the moment approximately 13% of the country is Black. Could the other 87% gang up on the Black population and vote that they have  no civil rights and cannot sue? Sorry, you are outnumbered!!!

Rights do away with public opinion or popular vote. 

A Supreme Court justice has as much of a constitutional right of opinion as anyone else. That should not be used in a constitutional argument about a particular law however.