[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Maybe.
You don’t seem to be counting that to the wise Latina woman and many others on the Supreme Court, the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” in which new things can constantly be found to meet the needs of the times as discerned by enlightened, socially-conscious judges such as herself.[/quote]
Yes, I understand that. But, I just have a feeling that the SCOTUS will be looking to make a point.
After hearing Roberts, and assuming he’s as persuasive in private, I have to believe he can frame the argument to his colleagues as, “obama is attempting to undermine Representative Democracy. The blatant disregard for the will of the people and it’s founding document, puts our very framework of Government at risk.”
Not to mention, he could show a replay of the mouth breathers surrounding and laughing at the SCOTUS during the State of the Union.
It’s conjecture on my part, but, I think more than the Good Guys on the court are pissed.
Oh, not to mention, the slaughter rule IS a joke and absolutely Un-Constitutional.
Hell, I think I’d have a pretty good chance to win that case as a Prosecutor.
I’d just read the Constitution. Then follow up with something like, “What stops the majority from “deeming” things into existence at their pleasure? Was that the intent of our Founders? Did they put as many checks and balances in place so that a willful majority could pervert the will of the people?”
Finally, I know that this has been upheld at lower courts. But, the FLOODLIGHTS on the issue currently, would force the SCOTUS to act. I don’t think I’m being dramatic by saying that the slaughter rule is a direct threat to Representative Democracy.
JeffR