Michael Ramirez for July 14, 2018

The repair is needed. The trumpster is breaking it.

The wrecking crew, hard at work.

The are going to change that top part from “We The People” to “We The Corporations (who are also people)”.

Abolition and destruction, not restoration.

I’m not the brightest bulb in the box, but can someone please explain to me how the Supreme Court is supposed to work? I thought judges ruled on the law and upheld the Constitution, not rule on their own beliefs and biases. I don’t understand all I know about it. ???

The state of affairs in Trumpistan: Corporations have rights. The unborn have their rights. Even the guns have their rights. Real people are losing theirs.

Ha. Now that’s funny.

Yes the Right wing want to restore the constitution. Women can’t vote, Other persons ( black people ) count as 3/5ths of a person. No citizenship for immigrants or the children of immigrants. No restriction of the second amendment. So citizens and corporations can own any weapon to include anti aircraft missiles and nuclear arms. (that is what no restriction of the right to weapons would look like) and maybe if they are lucky, they can bring back slavery. If you are an “Originalist” that is what you say you believe in, the original constitution as written by the founding fathers.

Even a quick scan of the Constitution shows that Congress is supposed to be collaborative and compromising not contentious in authoring legislation. SCOTUS can rule on laws but not author them. Ideally, SCOTUS would be non-partisan based on a collaborative and compromising Congress working on behalf of we the people rather than serving the needs of corporations, the wealthy, and the partisan ideologue. Laws should serve to include not exclude portions of society.

He also believes the British people love Trump, The Earth is flat, and people outside of that Trump cult will vote Republican this November.

Rewriting the new fascist Republican 1,000 year Reich justification.

Why is there a panel of justices? If legal and constitutional interpretation were easy or obvious you would need just one justice. Or maybe not even one. The Founders knew that honest people can disagree. They hoped that a panel would remove important decisions from one individual point of view. Moreover, by making the tenure of the justices longer than a presidential term they hoped to reduce the possibility of one president to stack the court with justices all of the same persuasion. That doesn’t mean that courts won’t have tendencies, but those tendencies should be reduced if the justices of any particular court have been appointed by several different presidents. Mitch McConnell kind of threw a spanner in the works on that one. The Constitution was deliberately written in rather general terms, so every court faces the problem of deciding if some particular piece of legislation is or isn’t covered by some general constitutional provision. There are real advantages to having a Constitution written in general terms, even vague terms. Times changes, economic conditions change, technology changes, moral standards change, and a Constitution written in very specific language would quickly lose its applicability. Does freedom of the press apply to electronic communications which were not imagined by the Founders? Yes. Do corporations count as people? Well, this court says Yes, but another court could well say no. What about separate but equal public schools or transportation? A court at one time said That’s fine, a different court later on said, It can’t be done. For some reason, many conservatives seem to think that what they do when they interpret is just read the original intent, but what liberals do is legislate from the bench. But both sides are interpreting. You can’t get away from it, and there was never an expectation that you could get away from it. Of course there are better interpretations and worse interpretations.

Game .. Set .. Match.

Once again, Ramirez ignores reality when he expresses his opinion.

“promote the general Welfare”, there’s the part the Republicans hate, they want to steal all the tax dollars and give it to their rich friends.

Should read: We,The Cult of Trump…

And it’s about time the Supreme Court returned to interpreting the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench!

Are those erasers in their hands???

The Constitution was written by the most radically liberal people on the face of the earth for its time. Do you think this group of regressive conservatives have any chance of getting back to the original intent?

^ Great observation!

Sorry guys! I didn’t mean to start a fire. :-}

Yes, the Republican Supreme Court has already restored that part of the Constitution that says that corporations are people and that money is speech.

Next up is restoring that part of the Constitution that says that Republican Presidents are above the law, and that both sexes are absolutely equal in that it is illegal for either to get an abortion for any reason.

.

And they’ll get back to the separate but equal clause, or at least 3/5, in due time.

So sad to watch you people.

The original intent is for judges to 1st compare a law or action against the Constitution, AS WRITTEN. Pass or fail.

If it passes, the 2nd is to compare the language in the law AS WRITTEN to determine if the law has been administered as written. Pass or fail.

If the law is ambiguous in its written, then and only then is the 3rd duty to research the debates and materials surrounding the passage to attempt to divine the intent of those who created the law.

That is the job. Nothing more, nothing less. Not to make new law. Not to change the intent based on political interpretation of social change since the founding.

The ONLY changes to the original intent of the Constitution and the Amendments should come from new Amendments. The founders KNEW the nation and the world would change. They created a mechanism take those changes into account. It is called Article V, and it is the ONLY legitimate, legal, valid method of altering the Constitution.

The bad dream is OVER.

Yes, restoring us to a time when African Americans were considered 3/5ths of a real person.

Okay, lets restore the Constitution to meet the minds of the original drafters. “bear arms”? When the Second Admendmnet was written the flintlock rifle was the state of the arts weapon-it first appeared in 1610 and was little changed in 175 years at the time of the Constitution; at that time a skilled rifleman could get off maybe 2 shots in a minute. I doubt the framers could foresee a time when a complete novice could fire an “arm” 100 shots a minute. So should the protections of the Second Amendment be limited to the Framers’ understanding of an arm-a single breech loading rifle/pistol? Also the 3/5 of a person was a gift to the Southern states to increase their representation in Congress so it would have been in the slaves best interest if they had not been counted at all-since few regarded the black slave as a person and almost of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention would have had any objections to flogging a 12 year old slave to death for breaking a plate other than it would have been a bad economic decision.

100 comments! Michael sure spun the demwits and nevertrumpers into overdrive with this one.