QUESTION: What is a Supreme Court Justice’s fundamental job?

Jul 2015
2,746
1,161
USA
ANSWER: The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Dec 2015
21,222
22,198
Arizona
ANSWER: The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.


Are there ANY OTHER subjects you ever discuss, John?? You seem a little "stuck" on Supreme Court/Constitution stuff.
 
Jul 2008
19,387
13,564
Virginia Beach, VA
ANSWER: The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret laws as they are written to see if they comply with the Constitution as it was written and in cases of ambiguity determine how best to apply the Constitution keeping in mind that the primary function of government is to ensure the rights of the individual.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Nov 2012
11,396
9,816
nirvana
ANSWER: The primary function of a Supreme Court Justice is to be obedient to the text of our Constitution, and give effect to its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
Hey Jim. The original text of the Constitution states that an African American is 3/5th's of a person. If a case is brought before the court that sues a states voting laws that African American voters should only count as 3/5th of a vote, should the Justices rule in favor of that plaintiff?
 
Nov 2012
5,758
3,492
Kekistan
Hey Jim. The original text of the Constitution states that an African American is 3/5th's of a person. If a case is brought before the court that sues a states voting laws that African American voters should only count as 3/5th of a vote, should the Justices rule in favor of that plaintiff?
That is about a dumb as a statement you have ever said, and that is saying a lot. The original text of the Constitution is any and all amendments that is part of the Constitution. Including Constitutional amendments that were added at a later date. So, 3/5 and any and all slavery Constitutional laws were abolished with the passing of the 13th,14th and 15th amendments. Rather or not you like it or not, those amendments were passed and added to the Constitution. This is how the Constitution is changed to adjust to society. It is not changed by just deciding to ignore the parts you don't like and deciding that amendments mean something different in order to fit a political narrative. If you don't like it, then change it. There is a procedure for that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Sep 2015
9,379
5,220
Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
Hey Jim. The original text of the Constitution states that an African American is 3/5th's of a person. If a case is brought before the court that sues a states voting laws that African American voters should only count as 3/5th of a vote, should the Justices rule in favor of that plaintiff?
You hit a new level of ignorant with that one.... Go read up on "Amending the Constitution"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Jun 2018
7,755
1,918
South Dakota
Libs are now in a position where they can't get legislation from the bench any more. Their recourse is to try and open a constitutional congress. Congress would most likely be open for a couple of years and the Libs wouldn't like most of what came out.
 
Nov 2012
11,396
9,816
nirvana
That is about a dumb as a statement you have ever said, and that is saying a lot. The original text of the Constitution is any and all amendments that is part of the Constitution. Including Constitutional amendments that were added at a later date. So, 3/5 and any and all slavery Constitutional laws were abolished with the passing of the 13th,14th and 15th amendments. Rather or not you like it or not, those amendments were passed and added to the Constitution. This is how the Constitution is changed to adjust to society. It is not changed by just deciding to ignore the parts you don't like and deciding that amendments mean something different in order to fit a political narrative. If you don't like it, then change it. There is a procedure for that.
According to you and other righties, all of the amendments after the first ten should be repealed. Especially the 14th, that forbids the states from denying those rights.

The original intent only gives white land owners the right to vote, so you are either for all 27 Amendments to the Constitution, or you are not for all 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

You don't get to argue originalist intent when it's a convenient argument for you.
 
Sep 2015
9,379
5,220
Lehigh Valley Pa.,USA
According to you and other righties, all of the amendments after the first ten should be repealed. Especially the 14th, that forbids the states from denying those rights.

The original intent only gives white land owners the right to vote, so you are either for all 27 Amendments to the Constitution, or you are not for all 27 Amendments to the Constitution.

You don't get to argue originalist intent when it's a convenient argument for you.
Try to understand the 9th Amendment....That sets the groundwork for amending the Constitution......

And where do you get this nonsense from???.........According to you and other righties, all of the amendments after the first ten should be repealed. Especially the 14th, that forbids the states from denying those rights.

What is your source for that ridiculous assertion..??
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Nov 2012
11,396
9,816
nirvana
Try to understand the 9th Amendment....That sets the groundwork for amending the Constitution......

And where do you get this nonsense from???.........According to you and other righties, all of the amendments after the first ten should be repealed. Especially the 14th, that forbids the states from denying those rights.

What is your source for that ridiculous assertion..??
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

But lets not get away from what the OP stated in bold of the post.

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Originalist intent is the text of the Constitution with the first ten Amendments.

So this completely blows Johnwk's post out of the water. You can not stick to originalist intent, and agree with Amending the Constitution, because you are now saying it is a living and breathing document, that can be interpreted now, and in the future other than it's original interpretation 242 years ago.

Which by the way would never have had any cases brought before the court then that would have recognized things like tax payer money going to religious organizations, like the incorrect interpretations by justices on the court today.
 
Last edited: