I often wonder if I am a pessimist or a realist.....I would love for states rights to be restored to what it was meant to be. I just don't see it ever happening.

The federal government does hold all the cards. How does one take them back? I don't see that happening through any appointment to any court. Who the hell cares, in the grand and important scheme of things, if the phrase "under God" is in the pledge or not? Why is such minutia (sp?) taking up the important time of the highest courts in the land?

States rights IS the Constitution. When I see the SC making rulings that turn interstate commerce into something completely different than what the words mean - without even having to worry about original intent - I lose heart and figure the battle is over. I might have some hope, except the justice I regard most highly bought into that crap recently. Scalia, Scalia, Scalia - someone growing marijuana in their own home for private use, whether one agrees with doing it or not, has nothing to do with interstate commerce, and you know that. The SC is strengthening the feds more often than not.

When the SC rules that government can seize property from one private individual and give it to another, I lose heart.

When justices believe that looking to foreign law is acceptable to justify their positions and make rulings on our Constitution, I lose heart. As Roberts so absolutely brilliantly put it, it's like surveying a crowd for your friends. Some are out there, and you are certain to find them if you look long enough.

I could go on and on with so many things that make me lose heart. Sigh.

Absolutely not. This is why there is an amendment process. Why add an amendment process if they did not think the rules and mores of society would change?

If something in the Constitution does not stand up to the test of time or social reform, then it can be changed. It is not an easy process, nor should it be. This means that it is not changed easily - if it were easy, than we would have a flag burning amendment (which I oppose, btw).

But to change the meaning of the words as a justice, or to look to foreign law for interpretation, is to eliminate it altogether.

There is no living, breathing document except through the amendment process.

I don't have any problem with the Constitution as a living document and much of that does come through intentional vagueness.

I also believe that over time the judiciary has usurped much of the authority of the legislative branch through a desire not to interpret law as it relates to the constitution but rather to provide justice and make moral decisions.

I disagree with Roe v. Wade for example, not because of what it instituted. I believe that abortion should be legal and freely available but for the Supreme Court to have created the right requires them dictating the answer to social questions rightfully handled through the democratic process.

Essentially, I think the court has increasingly decided that should is a synonym for must. This is increasingly true of the legislative branch as well, but at least they're the appropriate repository for most such decisions and can be overturned in less than a generation.

Steve: many would say that the only reason the federal government has 100% power of us is because of the Supreme Court's past complicitness in allowing it (mostly through the expansion of the Commerce Clause beyond all reasonable bounds).

I would prefer a much more small "c" conservative court. When society has so changed that the Supreme Court's rulings seem out of bounds then it will be a sign that it is time to amend it (I don't buy the "we shouldn't amend the consitution very much argument").

People are comparing her to another Bush Cronie, David Souter....Remember Him? Daddy's failed pick?....lol

Well, as least she is on record as in support of full civil rights for gays.

I'm hoping that pans out as being true. But these days, who knows?
:shrug:

(We need a shrug smilie.)

Okay then, Leo, what's your explanation for the obvious intentional vagueness of the wording? I can go ahead and start digging up documentation that shows far more definitive language being kicked around by the writers, personal writings that show far stricter personal beliefs than what made it in. And yet, what we have is a very vague document.

I'm not saying I don't agree that many court rulings have gone out of bounds, both in scope and in interpretation. However I don't see the solution to that being throwing out all room for adaptability. Reign it in, yes. Discard it, hardly.

:snap: :snap: amen and AMEN! :snap: :snap:

There's no going back.

The Fed is big and will continue to grow. The vagueries of the Constitution were put there because of the colonists' fears of government. Yet it is these very vagueries that allow it to push its boundaries. Once a step is made it usually can't be pushed back...especially these days.

Regarding this nominee....it's a sight better than worst case scenario, so you won't hear me scream about it - until she does something awful, that is.

Greg (sorry if it has two "g"s - I can never remember), I have never bought into the argument that the Constitution is vague or intentionally vague.

Perhaps the Preamble - "promote the general welfare", "secure the blessings of liberty", ...... those are open to interpretation, certainly, but they are describing why the Constitution is being written.

I see very clearly written passages on the powers given to each branch, the responsibilities of the feds, the rights of states and individuals, etc. Throw in the Bill of Rights, particularly the 9th and 10th Amendments, and the limitations on the government are quite clear.

What parts do you consider vague?

I think, rather, that certain groups that don't like parts of the Constitution have set about to make them vague. For example, look at the second amendment. It clearly says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Well, some say, this doesn't mean ALL the people, just the people in the well-regulated militia. Even though "the people" in all other amendments means every citizen, they claim it does not here. Thus, in this case, intentional vagueness is manufactured and not a reality.