Welcome to our official American Government blogging site. Our goal is to have thought provoking discussions about the influence our government has on issues that will affect our lives. I hope to develop your critical thinking and problem solving skills and encourage you to become aware of the world you live in.
I think they should be strict constitutionalists. They should truly be trying to interpret the constitution the way that the founding fathers wanted it to be. The judges shouldn't force their political agenda into their decisions. Many bad ones have been made due to this that have been in direct contradiction to the wishes of the founding fathers. Take, for instance, the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade where abortion was legalized. The three basic rights that our country was built upon are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But Roe v. Wade said that some people didn't have the first fundamental right and that is to the right to life. Upon this right all other rights are based and if you take away this right then you inadvertently take away all other rights. We need more strict constitutionalists on the supreme court.
i think they should do there was they're supposed to and that is judge, they're not supposed to be involved in the constitutional problems, so they need to stick to what they're supposed to do and that is judge. this is my game and my game is pain, game time means pain time period.
I agree with brad on the fact that there should be constitutionalists in the supreme court. They are there for a reason, to interpret the law under the constitution. Thats how they should pass judgement. I dont on the other hand agree with brads example, just saying.
I agree with brad. I think they should be strict constitutionalists. the constitution was made as a set of laws so shouldn't we try to follow them to? I believe that sometimes the constitution is too loosely interpreted and that the judges should try harder to stick to what the constitution says.
They shold be strict constitutionalists that is apart of there job and there are very few judges for the supreme court so they have to be the best and make the right decisions.
I believe that every judge should be as strict constitutional as possible, and should follow the rules by how they are, if they don't then i don't believe that they should be a judge, because they don't even follow the rules that our constitution has written for our country to follow.
I believe that judges should be strict constructionalists. I believe that no one that is judging another on a governmental level should be biased in any way.
i believe the supreme court judges should be strict onstructionalist because everyone is equal, we must follow the rules that we have concluded, no one can be an exception.
I like it trav...but i think we all are human and will have a bias opinon no matter who you are and no matter how hard to try to stay open minded...but yes they should try to stay as true to the constitution as possible for it was written as a guide to our government and laws
I believe that supreme court judges should be strict constructionalists the laws were made by the constitution and so the judges should follow the constitution when making their decisions.
well to be completely honest i have know idea what that means but looking at all the comments i would have to agree with everyone with saying that they should be strict constructionalists because they should try not to let emotions interfere with whats right
i believe the judges should pretty strict but i do understand that there are still some stupid and outdated laws, so if a situation like that comes up they should be allowed to use some judgment.
They should be both... they need to have a strong constitutional background. If they are being considered for supreme court they are knowledgeable about the interpretation of the constitution, but I don't men and women putting their decisions and reputation on the line if they don't firmly believe in how they vote...I want the justices to vote for what they believe...I know I would.
i feel that people should be strict but everybody has their own opinions and nobody can stop them from spending them. so really they should try to the best of their ability to be strict but everybody slips up every now and then.
I can't say I favor one over the other. I agree that every judge for the Supreme Court should follow the constitution, as it is what the laws in our country are solely based on. But, on the other hand...no matter who you are or where your from or anything your going to have opinions that interfere with your decisions. That's just human nature. It really just depends on the situation, and I think it's okay to incorporate your opinion as long as it doesn't become irrational or stray too far from what is written in the constitution. Someone said that abortion goes against the right to life as written in the constitution, but taking away that freedom of choice goes against the right to liberty, another thing our nation was founded on. So the constituion pretty much can't be used on that one...Theeee end.
they should be constructionists, their function is to interpriet the laws as adopted by the ledgislature. their own oppinions shouldn't be reflected in their rulings. they should follow the letter of the law.
i believe that they should be constructionist, they should not let their personal opinions get involved in their decisions. they should strictly follow the constitution, it was made for a reason and it should be upheld.
I think judges should be strict constructionalists. They need to follow the Constitution and not just make a personal decision to help someone else or just based on what they think is right.
I think that judges should be strict constructionalist. But at some point they can be judical activists, because it does not matter what the case is a judge will always have a decision that ties into a personal view.
I think that they should keep their personal lives out of their work but yes I agree with Hollie their personal lived will get involved into the case if they strongly disagree about the case they will go against it. Yes they should be strict.
I think they should be strict. My reasoning is this, they need to do what they think is right for the government. There is the right thing and there is what they have to do. They need to do what they think is to the best interest of the people. They have to think what the people will think of them if they make the wrong choice. They aren't only ruining the reputation of themselves. They are also ruining the reputation of what the people think of the government. They have to go through each step very carefully. That is because the people also need there protection to be able to feel safe to be in United States.
I agree with the majority of everyone here...the judges I think need to be strict constructionalists. Their job is to interpret the laws and make a ruling without taking one side or the other...and that means following the constitution and other laws.
After watching the videos and sitting in class i would like to change my opinion.The judges should be a balance between the two. you can run into problems if you are one or the other, so if you find a nice medium, it would probably be the best way to go.
I agree with Devin... they should be both to in order to construct an efficient government. Judges should have the background of constitution although, they need to make a decision based on their beliefs and in a way to make decisions for the betterment of the country.
I agree with Devin, and a the others. A Supreme court judge should know the Constitution inside out, upside down, and backwards. They should make interpretations of the law and not leave their answers big enough to used as a law as themselves. Roe v. Wade is a good example. That infringes on the States rights. (I am pro-choice by the way,). But I dont think it is a bad thing if they feel strongly about an issue. As long as it is not a "bench law" then they can have an opinion on touchy subjects.
The Judges should be very strict constitutionalists. I don't men and women putting their decisions and reputation on the line if they don't firmly believe in how they vote I want the justices to vote for what they believe I know I would.
I think that they should be constructionalists and that they should interpret the constitution the way that the founding fathers intended it to be interpreted. I also believe they should do what they believe is right but they need to seriously consider what they were hired for before they just choose what they think is okay and politically correct.
I think that they should stick to the constitution when possible, when the constitution does not say anything about the topic in question, however when there is no law on the topic then we need judges that will make a decision as close to the founding fathers ideas leaving room for outdated laws.
I believe from my understanding that they should be judicial activists because if we stick to the original constitution all the time like Whoopi said- she needs to be afraid of being a slave again. We have to have judges that can interpret and make the correct decisions for the case that the people are in.
I'll have to agree with the people who say the strict constitutionalists because the constitution was written for a reason, so we should most likely follow it in some way . . .
well i think that they should use strict constitutionlists. they should try to interpret the constitution the way it was meant to be not how we think it should be.
I think Greg and Brennen have good points. I believe that the constitution should be an outline that should be greatly followed, but the founding fathers did not know exactly how society would change in the later years. And indeed our society has changed from their day and we need to take that into consideration.
I believe they should be constitutionalists on the basis that the law is the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. The constitution is our basis for everything in the United States and if the Supreme Court cannot follow it then whats this country really coming to?
they should do what they're supposed to....judge, they're not supposed to be involved in the constitutional problems, so they need to stick to what they're supposed to do.
52 comments:
I dont know
I think they should be strict constitutionalists. They should truly be trying to interpret the constitution the way that the founding fathers wanted it to be. The judges shouldn't force their political agenda into their decisions. Many bad ones have been made due to this that have been in direct contradiction to the wishes of the founding fathers. Take, for instance, the infamous decision of Roe v. Wade where abortion was legalized. The three basic rights that our country was built upon are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But Roe v. Wade said that some people didn't have the first fundamental right and that is to the right to life. Upon this right all other rights are based and if you take away this right then you inadvertently take away all other rights. We need more strict constitutionalists on the supreme court.
i think they should do there was they're supposed to and that is judge, they're not supposed to be involved in the constitutional problems, so they need to stick to what they're supposed to do and that is judge. this is my game and my game is pain, game time means pain time period.
I agree with brad on the fact that there should be constitutionalists in the supreme court. They are there for a reason, to interpret the law under the constitution. Thats how they should pass judgement. I dont on the other hand agree with brads example, just saying.
I agree with brad. I think they should be strict constitutionalists. the constitution was made as a set of laws so shouldn't we try to follow them to? I believe that sometimes the constitution is too loosely interpreted and that the judges should try harder to stick to what the constitution says.
Judges should be strict constitutionalists... their job is interpret the constitution, and to give an un-biased ruleing.
They shold be strict constitutionalists that is apart of there job and there are very few judges for the supreme court so they have to be the best and make the right decisions.
Okay when I said constitutionalist I meant constructionalist. Matt says so too. It's kind of funny that everyone just kept repeating me.
I believe that every judge should be as strict constitutional as possible, and should follow the rules by how they are, if they don't then i don't believe that they should be a judge, because they don't even follow the rules that our constitution has written for our country to follow.
I believe that judges should be strict constructionalists. I believe that no one that is judging another on a governmental level should be biased in any way.
The supreme court judges should be strict constructionalists. The judges cannot let their personal views on the issues interfere with the cases.
i believe the supreme court judges should be strict onstructionalist because everyone is equal, we must follow the rules that we have concluded, no one can be an exception.
I really dont know at all
I like it trav...but i think we all are human and will have a bias opinon no matter who you are and no matter how hard to try to stay open minded...but yes they should try to stay as true to the constitution as possible for it was written as a guide to our government and laws
I believe they should be strict constructionalist because the constitution wasn't written just to be written. It was written to be followed.
I believe that supreme court judges should be strict constructionalists the laws were made by the constitution and so the judges should follow the constitution when making their decisions.
Judges should be strict constitutionalists. Their job is interpret the constitution but i think brad covered it pretty good.
i think they should follow the constitutions guidelines as well as they can, thats what there hired for...i think?..
well to be completely honest i have know idea what that means but looking at all the comments i would have to agree with everyone with saying that they should be strict constructionalists because they should try not to let emotions interfere with whats right
i believe the judges should pretty strict but i do understand that there are still some stupid and outdated laws, so if a situation like that comes up they should be allowed to use some judgment.
The Judges should be very strict constitutionalists. It looks like we all agree on this.
They should be both... they need to have a strong constitutional background. If they are being considered for supreme court they are knowledgeable about the interpretation of the constitution, but I don't men and women putting their decisions and reputation on the line if they don't firmly believe in how they vote...I want the justices to vote for what they believe...I know I would.
i feel that people should be strict but everybody has their own opinions and nobody can stop them from spending them. so really they should try to the best of their ability to be strict but everybody slips up every now and then.
I think they should be strict constitutionalists. It looks like we all agree on this.
I think they should be strict constructionalist, because the constitution was written to be followed.
I think they should be constitutionalists. their supposed to interpret the constitution in their jobs.
I really don't know
I can't say I favor one over the other. I agree that every judge for the Supreme Court should follow the constitution, as it is what the laws in our country are solely based on. But, on the other hand...no matter who you are or where your from or anything your going to have opinions that interfere with your decisions. That's just human nature. It really just depends on the situation, and I think it's okay to incorporate your opinion as long as it doesn't become irrational or stray too far from what is written in the constitution. Someone said that abortion goes against the right to life as written in the constitution, but taking away that freedom of choice goes against the right to liberty, another thing our nation was founded on. So the constituion pretty much can't be used on that one...Theeee end.
they should be constructionists, their function is to interpriet the laws as adopted by the ledgislature. their own oppinions shouldn't be reflected in their rulings. they should follow the letter of the law.
i believe that they should be constructionist, they should not let their personal opinions get involved in their decisions. they should strictly follow the constitution, it was made for a reason and it should be upheld.
I think judges should be strict constructionalists. They need to follow the Constitution and not just make a personal decision to help someone else or just based on what they think is right.
I think that judges should be strict constructionalist. But at some point they can be judical activists, because it does not matter what the case is a judge will always have a decision that ties into a personal view.
I think that they should keep their personal lives out of their work but yes I agree with Hollie their personal lived will get involved into the case if they strongly disagree about the case they will go against it. Yes they should be strict.
i think judges should be strict in following what is known to be right, and should not go by their own personal opinion.
I think they should be strict. My reasoning is this, they need to do what they think is right for the government. There is the right thing and there is what they have to do. They need to do what they think is to the best interest of the people. They have to think what the people will think of them if they make the wrong choice. They aren't only ruining the reputation of themselves. They are also ruining the reputation of what the people think of the government. They have to go through each step very carefully. That is because the people also need there protection to be able to feel safe to be in United States.
I agree with the majority of everyone here...the judges I think need to be strict constructionalists. Their job is to interpret the laws and make a ruling without taking one side or the other...and that means following the constitution and other laws.
After watching the videos and sitting in class i would like to change my opinion.The judges should be a balance between the two. you can run into problems if you are one or the other, so if you find a nice medium, it would probably be the best way to go.
I think they should be strict constitutionalists. They should follow the constitution as much as possible.
I agree with Devin... they should be both to in order to construct an efficient government. Judges should have the background of constitution although, they need to make a decision based on their beliefs and in a way to make decisions for the betterment of the country.
I agree with Devin, and a the others. A Supreme court judge should know the Constitution inside out, upside down, and backwards. They should make interpretations of the law and not leave their answers big enough to used as a law as themselves. Roe v. Wade is a good example. That infringes on the States rights. (I am pro-choice by the way,). But I dont think it is a bad thing if they feel strongly about an issue. As long as it is not a "bench law" then they can have an opinion on touchy subjects.
The Judges should be very strict constitutionalists. I don't men and women putting their decisions and reputation on the line if they don't firmly believe in how they vote I want the justices to vote for what they believe I know I would.
I think that they should be constructionalists and that they should interpret the constitution the way that the founding fathers intended it to be interpreted. I also believe they should do what they believe is right but they need to seriously consider what they were hired for before they just choose what they think is okay and politically correct.
I think that they should stick to the constitution when possible, when the constitution does not say anything about the topic in question, however when there is no law on the topic then we need judges that will make a decision as close to the founding fathers ideas leaving room for outdated laws.
I think judges should be strict constructionalists. Thet should follow the constitution and not make anything personal when making their decisions.
I believe from my understanding that they should be judicial activists because if we stick to the original constitution all the time like Whoopi said- she needs to be afraid of being a slave again. We have to have judges that can interpret and make the correct decisions for the case that the people are in.
I'll have to agree with the people who say the strict constitutionalists because the constitution was written for a reason, so we should most likely follow it in some way . . .
well i think that they should use strict constitutionlists. they should try to interpret the constitution the way it was meant to be not how we think it should be.
I believe that they should be strict construtionalists, but also be able to be activists if there is a need for it.
I think Greg and Brennen have good points. I believe that the constitution should be an outline that should be greatly followed, but the founding fathers did not know exactly how society would change in the later years. And indeed our society has changed from their day and we need to take that into consideration.
I believe they should be constitutionalists on the basis that the law is the constitution and it should be followed to the letter. The constitution is our basis for everything in the United States and if the Supreme Court cannot follow it then whats this country really coming to?
they should do what they're supposed to....judge, they're not supposed to be involved in the constitutional problems, so they need to stick to what they're supposed to do.
Post a Comment