Subscribe to Robby Soave's weekly newsletter, Free Media, on free speech, social media, and why everyone in the media is wrong everywhere all the time: reason.com/newsletters/
@XJWill1
Ай бұрын
Who decided the title for this video? I don't like to see these "X DESTROYS Y" titles. Whenever I see such a thing, I am less likely to watch.
@Musonius231
Ай бұрын
@@XJWill1They need their clickbait!
@volkris
Ай бұрын
You missed the funniest part of the exchange: when the CBS interviewer asked how Gorsuch responds to so many people being surprised based on what they thought they knew, Gorsuch must have bit his tongue against saying, well it sounds like CBS should have done a better job of informing the public, doesn't it? These reporters are causing exactly the problem Gorsuch was being asked about.
@jimmcmonagle2360
Ай бұрын
that's exactly what I was expecting to hear! He could have explained the actual definition of "media"!
@mfawls9624
25 күн бұрын
Purposely. It's an old Communist tactic. Tear down any trusted institution. Once there is no trust or support for it then you can dismantle it. ...as they are trying to do to the Supreme Court.
@notme222
Ай бұрын
"There are people watching this who thought they understood those issues and this court has told me I didn't understand. What would you say to that?" "Ummm ... that's what they get for watching CBS?"
@joshualieberman138
27 күн бұрын
The problem is that the politicians have politicized the court. And the Justices don't speak up very much, so all you hear is how political the court is. The fact that most people don't understand how the Court works or has basic knowledge of the Constitution doesn't help matters either.
@emm6101
18 күн бұрын
The court has proven they have no knowledge of the constitution. Also, it doesnt help when they keep showing off their various bribes and pretending they arent biased.
@BrianHeninger
Ай бұрын
If there was only a branch of government that had the power to make laws. 🤔
@TranJack123
Ай бұрын
Easier to convince five justices than the many people in Congress. Too bad the Earl Warren justices are gone.
@tmaz2701
Ай бұрын
If there was only a branch of government that had the GUTS TO REPEAL laws.
@XJWill1
Ай бұрын
@@tmaz2701 I've thought for a long time now that we need a 4th branch of government, which would control and police the rest of government. Repeal laws, overturn bad judicial decisions, charge and prosecute malfeasance of government officials. Basically, the checks and balances that the founders thought the 3 branches of government would do on each other but actually do not. The other 3 branches of government are too busy doing their own thing (and usually cooperating with those of the same party but other branches). We need a 4th branch whose ONLY duty is to control and reign in the other branches.
@randycook2170
Ай бұрын
They're too busy campaigning and investing in stocks.
@robertewalt7789
Ай бұрын
There is only one branch of government that makes or repeals law. It is called Congress.
@chickenfishhybrid44
Ай бұрын
People thought slavery and segregate schools were "settled" at one time too. Like what's your point? Lol
@robnarolewski9966
Ай бұрын
Obviously things one likes should never be changed no matter how wrong they are. How dare they.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
And that’s exactly how you get in trouble by Electing activist judges! Those don’t follow the constitution which is exactly Hitler Stalin, every other dictator, solid power. You don’t need Congress at that point judges did not create laws they interpret the laws they know exactly what writers of each law meant . Any law that you have that is not in the house , Is a temporary law.
@patrickmaloney1810
Ай бұрын
Japanese internment?
@kennethmeeker6369
Ай бұрын
There settled at the federal level that’s why you can sue universities for discrimination happens everyday. Your never getting rid of slavery because of the supply and demand of a demoralized corrupt society
@Anderson33333
27 күн бұрын
I was watching one of the full interviews The Justice gave. the subject of dred Scott came up and the Justice did come up with an almost reasonable explanation of why that wasn't a good ruling. If not for the then in place 5th amendment and lack of trial of dred Scott's master while in the federal territory. Unfortunately the Dred Scott case seems to have been a setup. As Dred Scott himself had a perfectly legitimate claim to freedom based upon his 10-year residence in the state of Illinois. But instead tried to make that claim in a federal court in Missouri on the basis of his prior residency in a federal territory. Which honestly sounds like a setup considering who was bringing the case against him was not his master but The new abolitionist husband of his master's widow. Remember Dred Scott had been living as a free man for decades now. Suggesting that his master understood he was free.
@james-kh7oi
26 күн бұрын
The court let the People decide. thanks.
@G0OD1004
Ай бұрын
Reliance on the court to stretch the law so things can be accomplished is onyl going to lead to an oligarchy where the 9 people decide the country's fate.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
This is why I don’t agree with Putting a activist judge in place I never could understand the concept
@ShawnGitahi
Ай бұрын
And what's ur definition of activist coz the immunity ruling seemed very activist to me,that is unless u can tell me where that is in the constitution,I might have missed it,,,or the DNA case where the conservatives said it was consistent with the constitution for the gvt to take ur DNA without reasonable cause
@G0OD1004
Ай бұрын
@@ShawnGitahi I think that you're a bit politically charged but that's okay. If you see the OC, I typed "9." So I was referring to the entire court. I said no support for "liberal" or "conservative" justices. If you cared to know, KBJ sided with the conservatives and ACB with the Liberals. So this is not a politics issue. I hope that your divisiveness doesn't spread throughout the country.
@rjl5759
16 күн бұрын
Here lies the problem, the "immunity" case was sent back to lower court for a clearer definition on immunity. Why dont you guys ever read pass tge headlines? I think its hubris. @ShawnGitahi
@bucc5207
Ай бұрын
You could tell from the interviewer's voice that the Roe reversal was a big rug pull for him.
@JobiWan144
27 күн бұрын
I am always gonna watch a video titled, "Entity I like DESTROYS entity I don't like with FACTS and LOGIC"
@LuisVelazquezLV3
29 күн бұрын
Amber is 100% correct on "many people are saying".... aka i am saying
@jacobstamm
9 күн бұрын
Gorsuch didn’t “school the interviewer”. He answered a good question with an even better answer.
@markmonce5485
Ай бұрын
I have talked to people who claim to be well-informed who think that either a) The Supreme Court has banned abortions, or b) The Court has said Congress cannot pass a national bill legalizing abortion. Neither is true. As noted in the commentary in this video, there are too many reporters or commentators who know these facts but intentionally play dumb in the way they construct their questions.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
That’s because they are being influenced by propaganda that is created by a party that’s dangerous. This is exactly how Adolf Hitler could solid power. He no longer Needed a Congress
@CMA418
28 күн бұрын
True, but on the flip side people ignore the gifts and conflicts of interest.
@kesilame2590
14 күн бұрын
@@CMA418or are really wishing that the Supreme Court rule according to the feelings.
@CMA418
14 күн бұрын
@@kesilame2590 or what I said.
@kesilame2590
14 күн бұрын
@@CMA418or what I said.
@user-zh8kv9jb3o
Ай бұрын
Umm didn't the epa just just issue emergency order in violation on chevron rule. About pesticides..
@tanakaba
Ай бұрын
The over-the-top title made me laugh, thanks for that.
@scsmith4604
Ай бұрын
Way to DESTROY them with FACTS and LOGIC
@darbyheavey406
Ай бұрын
All CAPS
@raulthepig5821
Ай бұрын
SCOTUS should stop listening to the people and congress and rule laws are constitutional or not according to the constitution as it was written. If the people disagree they can pass an amendment.
@jacobdeem8187
Ай бұрын
We have had a liberal bent supreme court for years. We now have court making decisions based on the constitution
@ShawnGitahi
Ай бұрын
Can u explain the provision of the constitution that gives a president immunity directly,,,coz safe abortion wasn't a thing in 1789 so I doubt it came up,immunity on the other hand clearly came up
@raulthepig5821
Ай бұрын
Partly based on the constitution.
@yogabellz3964
Ай бұрын
Almost absolute immunity for Presidents is based on the constitution....I think NOT.
@jacobdeem8187
21 күн бұрын
@@ShawnGitahi sure, it's right next to the one about abortion and I'm pro choice to a point.
@lowbarbillcraig3689
18 күн бұрын
the name of the abortion pill ALMOST contains the word mephisto? REALLY? wow.
@charleshanks6186
15 күн бұрын
No you let the billionaires decide for the people
@t60334
Ай бұрын
Neil needs to remember their part of three branches, not the trunk.
@rapid13
Ай бұрын
Gorsuch is my new favorite. Scalia is sorely missed, but I really like Neil.
@wettoasterman
Ай бұрын
Clarence Thomas, in my lifetime so far.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
Both are great judges. I don’t understand why anybody would want an activist judge that doesn’t make any sense. I would rather have somebody that goes by the constitution, By the people who created the law at the time, the law was created or not what somebody’s opinion is , that’s horrible
@rapid13
Ай бұрын
@@wettoasterman Thomas leans a bit too far right for me. Gorsuch fits my libertarian beliefs better. But honestly, the 3 libs are just awful and Roberts isn’t much better. I will say that I have been surprised by how the whole bench has voted more with this makeup than at any other time in my lifetime.
@johnrichards6039
22 күн бұрын
Yet he just voted with the dark side as to allow Xiden’s Title IX changes to gut Women’s sports allowing Men into their spaces. Head scratcher to me but I would like to hear his reasoning. He’s a critical thinker and Constitutional originalist, not a partisan hack so I’ll look forward to that explanation.
@mattvarner5825
24 күн бұрын
Libertarian NPR
@43adsfa3qlaw
15 күн бұрын
the three 'left wing' judges almost always vote the way the progressive left wants them to. Seems they just try to find ways to argue what they need their vote to be. There is never any doubt how they will vote. The other justices are a different story.
@user-ji2on8eg3l
26 күн бұрын
Federalist# 78 "Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge." Publius
@GregPiperWriter
Ай бұрын
What a weird background to do this segment in. Is that someone's playroom?
@bruceyyyyy
Ай бұрын
Video title ENDS serious DISCUSSION in favor of CLICKBAIT content.
@payleryder45
Ай бұрын
I think it's tongue-in-cheek send-up of clickbait video titles.
@AJadedLizard
Ай бұрын
Viewers don't WATCH VIDEO, form opinions on its content based purely on their FEELINGS and EMOTIONS.
@nunyabidness3075
Ай бұрын
I actually think Major Garrett was honestly asking what his viewers might ask. Just because a lot of reporters are dishonest, doesn’t mean they all are. I bet there’s some lefty out there screaming that he is throwing softball questions.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
I do not understand why people are concerned about a constitutional judge. I’d be more concerned about an activist judge. I just have somebody go by the law then what they believe judge never go by what he believes.
@nunyabidness3075
Ай бұрын
@@bittorrentpromotion4084 I have the same belief and wonder. My guess is that it’s a combination of foolishness and unfortunately, that protection of the way things are bias. One would think the institutional crowd would be defending judges who try to go by the law which is very American in theory. Instead we have them defending the tradition of the third world where they think judges should just make things right.
@peetky8645
26 күн бұрын
good job
@Harry-hq8fi
23 күн бұрын
Gorsuch is a 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡.
@mfawls9624
25 күн бұрын
Robbie Soave looks quite unmanly.
@mustang607
22 күн бұрын
Yeah, let’s not discriminate on the basis of race. We’re not national socialists. Although some act like it.
@florianschmoldt8659
25 күн бұрын
You've lost the plot if Jeffrey Dahmer is your voice of reason
@sgt.grinch3299
Ай бұрын
100% correct.
@Xmvw2X
14 күн бұрын
I think people misunderstand what cases like Roe vs Wade really are. Yes, the Supreme Court is technically correct to reverse Roe vs Wade in the pure sense that it fundamentally is out of place at the federal level. However, Roe vs Wade was a NECESSARY tool. It was a ruling that could be applied (incorrectly) as a blanket ruling across all states. This meant the Supreme Court didn't have to faff with a thousand state driven laws that were unconstitutional. It was a ruling that made the process easy. It also was a ruling that meant no one had to worry about the Supreme Court doing or specifically NOT doing their job. What do I mean by this? When Roe vs Wade was reversed, it meant the decision was pushed down to the states. (Yay! Right?) Well, now states could push all kinds of legislation, including unconstitutional legislation that includes both prioritizing livelihood of the baby over the parent, punishing doctors just performing their hippocratic oath, and going as far as putting women in prison for murder who sought an abortion of pregnancies that would risk their life or of an unviable child. These were FAR out of line laws being pushed at the state level, and some passed. So what about the Supreme Court? Well, it's now their job to look at ALL of these new laws being spammed and deal with them. So right out of the gate, in just a few months, they probably had 50 new laws they HAD to address. But here's the problem. They didn't. They didn't address a single one. They still haven't addressed a single one. They just let state level laws run rampant and disenfranchise US citizens. Now some women are in prison, doctors have fled states. There are rural areas that now have zero doctors who can assist with births because everyone fears the lawful repercussions of bad legislation. And here's the Supreme Court twittling their thumbs going "yep, all this looks perfectly ok." THAT'S the problem. THAT'S why Roe vs Wade existed. It was to stop state level BS because the older Supreme Court knew it would be too much work to police. It would just pile on excessive case load that could not be handled. So you just stomp all over people's constitutional rights instead...because you want to be lazy. Roe vs Wade's purpose was to allow laziness on this matter. That was its function. The Chevron ruling was another case like this. There are many cases that existed, not rightfully at the federal level, but were necessary to keep the Supreme Court functional and not overwhelmed. These were necessary tools. And the problem you face when you keep looking for and dismantling these tools is you overload the Supreme Court into non-function. State level laws pass, the Supreme Court doesn't have the raw time to manage, and the bad laws stay, and they can stay for decades. So what's worse? One inappropriately placed law at the federal level that offered the most total constitutional protection, or free reign at the state level and giant mess? The later is what we have now. The later is pushing doctors out of the these states and pushing women out of these states. There are women who have died, actually died, from being forced to give birth in an entirely avoidable life threatening situation, solely, SOLELY because of this ruling. People have died from this choice. This can not be under stressed. The Supreme Court is for what seems like biased reasons these necessary tools. Yes, you can always argue the side that it was not the purpose of the federal court to define these laws. That's an actual good argument. But it is and was always the worse choice not to. The older Supreme Courts knew this. They KNEW it and kept these laws. They understood the purpose. They understood the value of them existing. The modern Supreme Court is only showing that they don't understand. Even if you ignore ideas like religious bias or towards the ultra wealthy, or whatever many want to place upon the new justices, even ignoring that, you still have the glaring problem of incompetence and not recognizing why things are established and have been established for decades. These are old rulings, old, old rulings they are dismantling, and they don't seem to understand why they're there. They don't recognize the bad that it's stopping. And they seem to think they can deal with the fallout afterwards. We've already seen they can't and they don't. There's already a LOT of state laws passed that the Supreme Court isn't addressing. They already are not doing their job, the extra work they created by reversing these old rulings. This is incompetence. Or it's laziness. Or it's bias. Pick any one. They're all bad.
@UncontrolledJibe
Ай бұрын
What happened to the Libertarian ideal of letting "people" decide for themselves ? "The people " is the road to Collectivism.
@damiengrief
Ай бұрын
Gorsuch is easily my favorite Justice. He's well spoken, a great legal mind, and he's principled. I love that he's not super ideological in terms of political opinions and always sides with his Constitutional principles - which is why he ends up siding with the "liberal" Justices half the time. He's the most originalist of the "conservative" wing of the Court and was the best thing Trump did while in office last time. I despise the way the media and politicians on the left muddy the waters and slander the Court. They misrepresent rulings with shocking headlines and politicians can't handle losing battles so they resort to calling for packing the Court and other BS authoritarian policies.
@jfangm
Ай бұрын
If he sided with the Constitution, he'd agree to strike down the all gun control laws. He hasn't.
@prometheusrex1
Ай бұрын
Gorsuch betrayed the country --- and especially women --- by construing Title VII to apply to trans psychos.
@VeniVidiVid
Ай бұрын
This 👆
@michaelbarton6568
Ай бұрын
Well said ... and now he's my favorite, too.
@roywest6557
15 күн бұрын
We humans have a natural right to discriminate, but unfortunately they took that away from me.
@GeorgeOzier-gr5zq
Ай бұрын
You two don't actually expect us to take you seriously, do you?
@craiglawson663
14 күн бұрын
I miss the old Democrat party.
@jello12b
20 күн бұрын
He reminds me of the Dread Pirate Roberts from “The Princess Bride”. She reminds me of Wednesday Addams. Everyone watching this who thinks these two can have anything remotely intelligent to say based on a one minute clip cherrypicked out of an hour long interview reminds me of Puck’s comment in “A Midsummer’s Night Dream”... “What fools these mortals be.”
@Cuptial-ev9tb
Ай бұрын
Wait isn’t this the guy from Rising / The Hill?
@osmbsmy.706
Ай бұрын
I don't know why they can't say "I saw the ruling on blahblahblah and thought it might upset some folks, what do you say to them?" That's exactly what happened. They are likely not offended themselves, they are imagining an offended class.
@adamkamieniarz9223
Ай бұрын
For some reason out of 3 Free Media videos released today only this one doesnt show up in my Subscribtions tab. I get delisting videos in algorythm based listings, but Subscribtions tab should show all videos from chabnels I subscribe.
@spencerlane2871
Ай бұрын
Love the ironic "FACTS and LOGIC" meme.
@stevekane1331
Ай бұрын
Bravo Ms Duke and Mr Soave. Calm rational reasonable discussion - so refreshing and odd these days
@9G9A9M
28 күн бұрын
I don’ know what comment was deleted by who ?
@juancuelloespinosa
Ай бұрын
this is the most clickbait title I've seen from reason in some time
@rustyreckman2892
Ай бұрын
Not just the media. Democrats too
@Subpar-u6q
Ай бұрын
Well, half the people anyway.
@joshuagoldstein8116
Ай бұрын
Neil is working for Ben Shapiro?!
@michaelhiggins2562
Ай бұрын
The Supreme Court is doing just fine. Leave the the hell alone. I didn't complain when the court was liberal and I will not hear complaints about the court now that they are focused on "Constitutionally-based" decision making. Example, where in the Constitution does it say a woman has a right to an abortion?
@emm6101
18 күн бұрын
There is nothing in the constitution saying a president has immunity sport. Not a single word.
@permiek
17 күн бұрын
Yeah sure, billionaire corruption of Justices is just fine
@kesilame2590
14 күн бұрын
@@emm6101the court should not rule based on feelings.
@emm6101
13 күн бұрын
@@kesilame2590 but it has, presidential immunity was purely for trump. No text exists to support it or many of their decisions.
@notme222
Ай бұрын
I'm curious enough to hear what Gorsuch said that I finally decided to click on this. But ReasonTV, you need to understand that your BULLSHIT use of CLICKBAIT titles made me NOT WANT TO watch this. Can Reason go back to being the adults, please?
@ak102986
15 күн бұрын
More propaganda. Talking without actually talking about the issues.
@douglemay7989
Ай бұрын
This is how he explains their recent legislating from the bench? Change the name of the Country to the Federalist States of America.
@robertblue4630
Ай бұрын
Inventing absolute immunity seems logical and factual.
@VeniVidiVid
Ай бұрын
Agreed, that would’ve been a problem had they done that.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
Constitution judges follow the constitution they cannot find a legal standing for that if you get an Judicial that is activist then you got huge problems
@robertblue4630
Ай бұрын
@@bittorrentpromotion4084 Thanks bot
@ShawnGitahi
Ай бұрын
Okay,where is immunity in the constitution,please enlighten because I used to think that conservatives don't care about implications just the law so I was shocked when most of their arguments were on how a president could function without immunity,safe abortion wasn't a thing in 1789so they couldn't have discussed it,immunity is sth they surely discussed and they still didn't include it
@drSamovar
Ай бұрын
You are mistaken about those Alito comments.... he took the bait hook line and sinker....it was John Roberts who offered up the responsible, balanced answer. I enjoy your presentation, but be careful not to sink your own integrity by ignoring the malignant and unlawful elements that Alito and Thomas have become. Your agenda is showing.
@jppalm3944
Ай бұрын
Not one network balanced
@ShumaniTatankaOwachi
Ай бұрын
Many people are saying that Amber Duke is awesome and I agree.
@cooterhead_jones
26 күн бұрын
“We let the people decide.” I don’t think that is a good idea either in policy or practice. Half the people in the country are dumber than I am.
@KevinSmith-qi5yn
Ай бұрын
Gorsuch is the best Supreme Court Justice in US history thus far. When I think about which justices the media and politicians attack, Gorsuch is usually not it. Keegan is also usually not targeted by politics.
@CurtisCT
23 күн бұрын
01:00 - What a disgraceful answer from a clueless judge! Since when do we let "the people" decide constitutional matters? If that were the case, slavery would still be legal and I would have had to attend a segregated school, in a segregated community, riding a segregated bus and eating in segregated restaurants. NO Justice Gorsuch, it's YOUR job as a Supreme Court justice to decide difficult constitutional matters, not "the people"! That's why you were nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court and why we pay you the big bucks! In America, matters of constitutional importance are NOT decided by popular vote, but by the justices of the United States Supreme Court!
@clancy1015
Ай бұрын
I have never understood the fact that judges and justices have different "interpretations" of laws. Laws should be understood to have one and only one "interpretation". If laws can mean multiple different things, then how the hell are you supposed to follow or enforce them? This also applies to the constitution. The amendments and the clauses mean ONLY what the people who wrote them meant when they wrote them. If they don't, then how are you supposed to tell what the hell is constitutional and what isn't? The entire thing feels like an arbitrary farce if you don't actually know what a law means in no uncertain terms. Laws should always be interpereted in only one way and if you don't like that way, change the law. It sets a terrible precedent that allows people to just decide that a law doesn't mean what it was written to mean, allowing them to be changed without any due course of making a new law or repealing one. I don't think I need to explain how that is a bad thing.
@monkeydude9192
Ай бұрын
Allow me to introduce to the concept that language is imperfect and life is complex. Its basically impossible to write a law in a way that account for all possible permutation of situations to which that law would apply. That's why precedent is such an important thing in law.
@STho205
Ай бұрын
So how does the 14th Amendment (a law) relate to laws on abortion or homosexuality...in your black and white objective world view. Not trolling...those are legit questions for our age the past 50 years
@payleryder45
Ай бұрын
What's great is that the same people who will tell you that the Constitution is a living document will insist upon the strictest, most literal, and "conservative" (small "c") reading of a Supreme Court opinion that they like, e.g. Roe v. Wade.
@zirconiumdiamond1416
Ай бұрын
Is wiretapping a phone call a "search and seizure"? Even if the laws were written perfectly (which is never going to happen) there are always going to be new scenarios that come out where interpretation is needed. When the 4th amendment was written, "search and seizure" covered everything that could violate someone's privacy. So, do you interpret it literally and say that copying an electrical signal is not searching or seizing it? Or do you go a bit more metaphorical and say that wiretapping is still "seizing" the words of the conversation?
@payleryder45
Ай бұрын
@@zirconiumdiamond1416 The cool thing about the Constitution is that it has explicit prescribed processes to amend it - people could debate the issue and conclude this one way or the other through the amendments process.
@spikedaniels1528
Ай бұрын
Are you wasting your time here??
@petert7332
Ай бұрын
That is rubbish. It was six people who decided that half of the people don’t decide what they can or cannot do with their body. It was the same six people who don’t acknowledge the fact that affirmative action was a counter balance to the systemic racism unfortunately still present in the world. In an ideal world his argument about race is correct but we don’t live in an ideal world.
@cnlawrence1183
Ай бұрын
FYI this video did not show up in my Subscription feed. "CNN Thrilled.." and "The Kamala Crash?..". This happened last week on 7/31 where "Biden demands term limit..." didn't show but the other two did.
@stevekluesner4430
28 күн бұрын
Mr. Gorsuch is WRONG (!!!!)the court DIDN'T DECIDE THAT PEOPLE , INDIVIDUALS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE what their choice(s) concerning the abortion issue(s) are to be ☹️☹️☹️☹️ 👎👎If they had , they would have come out with the ruling that should have been made at the time of Roe vs Wade ; which is that it is a potentially very complicated/complex and deeply personal issue(s) (he was right about that much but not about what implications rightly apply as such) AND that being "the case" for basic intents and purposes the government doesn't have the where-with-all to dictate a predetermined outcome to be imposed on people ; no governmental unit of any sort without showing justified cause for superceding the will of the person(s) more directly involved ; life of the fetus(es) is a compelling point BUT it's not the only life involved/affected ☹️☹️☹️🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔🙏🙏🙏✊️✊️(etc)
@MicahThomason
Ай бұрын
Amber is so pretty
@WildBill99x
Ай бұрын
How can the Supreme Court “decide the constitutionality of laws” and at the same time “stay out of politics?” There is a serious problem with the idea that the Supreme Court decides what the Constitution means. In doing so, they would be deciding what are the powers of government. But they are part of the government, so they have a conflict of interest. Questions on the meaning of the Constitution, like questions about any document, should go to the entities that wrote it. That is the states. The federal government is supposed to obey the Constitution. It won’t mean anything if the federal government has ultimate authority to decide what it means. This problem is why so much of what the federal government does is not authorized by the Constitution.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
Well, for one thing, they all have access to documents that was written at the time the law was written it’s in the archives even the Bill of Rights is in the archives, When a judge makes their opinion without documentation that’s called activist judges, which is very dangerous. Actually, these guys follow the constitution
@WildBill99x
Ай бұрын
@@bittorrentpromotion4084 It would seem they don't follow the constitution when they determine government has some power that isn't specified in the constitution.
@Individual_Lives_Matter
Ай бұрын
@@WildBill99x That has happened. Hopefully, an originalist will eventually overturn it (like Roe vs Wade).
@yeshua64
Ай бұрын
Absolute immunity is based and super libertarian.
@zirconiumdiamond1416
Ай бұрын
I don't think it is necessarily Libertarian, so much as just respecting the separation of powers between the different branches of government. The court just formalized what had already been tacitly acknowledged. Most libertarians probably don't like the fact that Obama is immune from prosecution for drone striking a US citizen. And there are probably a few Libertarians who look at the number of obviously illegal ways that Biden is using to try to waive student loans and feel like at some point it would be nice if he caught an embezzlement charge for spending money without legal authorization. However, putting your predecessor in jail is Venezuela type garbage. And it would obviously screw over the intent of the Constitution if Congress could pass a law making it a criminal act to veto their bills. So, unfortunately, immunity is necessary.
@yeshua64
Ай бұрын
@zirconiumdiamond1416 You forgot to mention Trump's coup attempt. But he's now immune. Trump is king. So based. Cry libs.
@ShawnGitahi
Ай бұрын
How ironic🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣u conservatives rumble on about how the law should be read as it is,how implications don't matter coz it's the work of congress but suddenly it all changes coz it's necessary,based on ur ideology,what's necessary is irrelevant,all that matters is what the law says and there is nothing that even implies that the president has immunity in the constitution,sth like abortion,homosexuality I doubt were discussed,but immunity considering they were running away from a king was clearly discussed at some capacity and they still didn't include it,what does that mean
@zirconiumdiamond1416
Ай бұрын
@@ShawnGitahi so Congress can pass a law that makes it a felony for a President to veto?
@Individual_Lives_Matter
Ай бұрын
Absolute in what sense? Do you know what the word absolute means?
@gabrielpacheco6383
Ай бұрын
I don’t understand how he “destroyed CBS” based on a clip that only lasted a minute and 4 seconds, especially since you guys spent five and a half minutes attempting to do it yourselves. I watched the rest of the actual interview, and there was no “destroying” going on. It was just a discussion. A very one-sided discussion, but that’s what interviews are. He went on to say that the court had already made changes, saying, ““Major, as you know, we adopted an ethics code just this term, and I think that was, uh, a significant step.” (10:54) The interviewer says “Do you think it’s sufficient”, and Gorsuch responds with “I think it’s remarkable that we were able to agree unanimously” (11:04), which, in my opinion, is in no way a reasonable answer to a simple yes or no question. Also, another area that struck me was when he said, “Major, I don’t know better than you do on these questions.” (10:15) When asked about abortion and how overturning Roe v. Wade gives people more freedom. Again, he’s avoiding answering the question by trying to make himself seem humble and a man of the people, and I don’t think he provided the American people with a sufficient answer to the question. You guys cut the clip off at the end of the response and then made it seem like Gorsuch dropped the mic. He didn’t. He didn’t even fumble it. Not even in the real video. This video makes no sense whatsoever. You guys need to do better. Oh. And stop clickbaiting.
@JeremyRight-zi4yp
Ай бұрын
Cope and seethe maybe?
@gabrielpacheco6383
Ай бұрын
@@JeremyRight-zi4yp I'm confused, but I'll try. Thanks.
@Musonius231
Ай бұрын
You shouldn't distract Souve and Duke with trivialities such as facts and evidence. Can't you see that they are very busy destroying CBS?
@Musonius231
Ай бұрын
I had a reply here earlier but it was censored/deleted. Thought the hosts were free speech warriors....
@gabrielpacheco6383
Ай бұрын
@@Musonius231 That's pretty ironic. Maybe try reposting it again or rewording it, if you can? It's okay if you can't. I'm genuinely curious to know what it was, and I don't mean this in a passive-aggressive way. I really want to know.
@alexanderclaylavin
Ай бұрын
i used to read reason magazine. then i read a couple history books.
@Individual_Lives_Matter
Ай бұрын
Howard Zinn?
@gw7120
Ай бұрын
It matter what Amy was a horrible SC pick , horrible
@throckmortensnivel2850
Ай бұрын
If "we the people" are going to decide, what's the purpose of the Supreme Court? In fact "we the people" have long since decided that women have a right to choose. That was not imposed upon them by the Roe v. Wade decision. It was the current Supreme Court that decided to intervene against "we the people". This is the same Gorsuch who shook his finger at Biden for proposing that "we the people" should decide whether Presidents are immune from criminal prosecution. So, sorry, but Gorsuch doesn't have a leg to stand on here. He's already cut himself off at the knees.
@Jimraynor45
Ай бұрын
Well, I don't want to put words in Gorsuch's mouth, but I think he meant local people should decide the issue of abortion, not the federal government or Supreme court. Most american women have the ability to get an abortion, and if you include travel, every woman in america has the opportunity to get an abortion. However, some places want to restrict or ban it, as they should have the right to do so. "We the people" shouldn't meant imposing one size fits all decisions for everyone, but should allow each state/individual to make their own decisions. Remember, we are composed of 50 states, not one monolithic government.
@throckmortensnivel2850
Ай бұрын
@@Jimraynor45 "...as they should have the right to do so..." Why? Why should states, or municipalities, or the federal government, or anybody else, have the right to interfere in the medical choices a woman makes? In any case, it does not answer my point that if "we the people" are to decide everthing, what role does the Supreme Court have? What other rights should be subject to local approval?
@Jimraynor45
Ай бұрын
@throckmortensnivel2850 It's a complex issue that many people fundamentally disagree upon. There is the issue, which I'm sure you are aware of when a fetus or embryo is to be considered a full individual with rights. Something you shouldn't ignore. You ask what right does the state have to interfere with this medical choice. Well, I would point out first, even in the most abortion friendly states, to my knowledge, there are still restrictions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of no state that would allow an abortion in the 9th month or similar late-term abortion. So, there is already "medical interference." It's simply a question of degree. At one exact point in the term of pregnancy should abortion be outlawed? And there is much disagreement. In overturning roe.v wade, the court simply said the federal government won't answer that question, but instead, each state will provide its own answer. It's similar to the age of consent for marriage. If I'm not mistaken, some states, you can get married at 16, others 18. I won't pretend to say which is better, but I think allowing states to decide on their own is best as it will more likely reflect the values of the local people. Now, you may not like it, but you do have the freedom to move or to try to convince people to change their beliefs. I think having more diverse laws that come from different people will ultimately give us more choices and make the nation stronger as a whole. We are a large nation with many different cultures and backgrounds. A one size solution is rarely the best choice.
@throckmortensnivel2850
Ай бұрын
@@Jimraynor45 A lot of people don't think women should have the right to vote. A lot of people don't think blacks should have the right to attend white schools or live in white neighbourhoods. And whether some states have restrictions on abortions doesn't change the question of whether they should have those restrictions. But all that is still avoiding the question of the role of the Supreme Court. If, as Gorsuch says, the people can decide, what is the purpose of the Supreme Court? And if states can decide, why not municipalities or neighbourhoods? the problem is, once you start whittling away at rights, there is not logical place to stop.
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
I don’t understand why people have problems with this? The judges kicked it back to the state, which means the state create the laws. We are 50 nations inside of one protective country So what people try to do is they try to manipulate the constitution by going around the constitution and sending something to the Supreme Court and hopefully they make a law that law is only considered temporary, If created by a judge, they simply put the power back to the people. There should be no laws unless their past legally.
@maitlandbowen5969
Ай бұрын
And what, you’re trying to claim that you are not biased or using your own viewpoints to influence your interpretations? Big (poor) joke!
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
Constitution with judges follow the constitution activist judges do not
@Individual_Lives_Matter
Ай бұрын
It's aspirational. Having an ideal doesn't mean you will always live up to it. That's why there's more than one of them. They can check each other (like the scientific process and free inquiry). Activist judges, like those who believe in the faith called CRT, do not place following the constitution as their ideal; they place following the progressive 'arc of history' as their ideal or 'making the world a better place' (according to their own beliefs).
@denniskirschbaum9109
Ай бұрын
I never thought I would see a Supreme Court so partisan. Overturning president and voting along straight ideological lines. Taking away rights that we have had for decades. Very painful to witness. Add the serious ethical lapses of Alito and Thomas. It has seriously undermined confidence in the judiciary. I am struggling to understand how you are able to justify this.
@timmarshall7292
Ай бұрын
RBG warned the Corporate Democratic Party that Roe was a weak decision; a Supreme Court of nine men cannot create Rights. The Corporate Democratic Party chose to do nothing to codify abortion, because they know most Citizens want restrictions and for abortion to be rare and they do not go with Abortion Extremism pushed by the Far Left minority.
@jr6pc
Ай бұрын
Almost as if you didn't watch the video. SCOTUS has always been partisan and one could make the argument the only centrist in our lifetime is Roberts appointed by Bush. Obama appointed two liberals and nobody complained about partisanship. Taking away rights? More like reversing bad decisions made on shaky legal ground and forcing the legislature to do their job. FYI FDR voiced your same concerns when SCOTUS kept voting against his policies and his own party sided against him when he wanted to pack the court.
@Individual_Lives_Matter
Ай бұрын
Precedent gets overturned all the time, especially bad precedent. Abortion was never a federal issue nor is it a right to get an abortion. Affirmative action is racial discrimination and was a very bad idea born out of historical guilt, which is no way to govern a country.
@mattfoster2021
Ай бұрын
"In favor of the Right". Well, what's Right - is Right. Trumplicans Unite!!!
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
Constitutional judges don’t actually follow the right they follow the constitution, Judges That are activist that are activist
@paradoxparty
Ай бұрын
"States rights that restrict the individual" is now considered more "free", what kind of paleoconservative nonsense is this?
@bittorrentpromotion4084
Ай бұрын
The state and federal are not in control of each other. Never has been we live under two constitutions., Bringing right to the people to decide is more freedom, which is exactly what the founding father wanted
@paradoxparty
Ай бұрын
@@bittorrentpromotion4084 I am a millennial. According to the founding fathers most of us shouldn't even be and to vote because we don't own property. The way you talk about the state and it's founders reminds me of the way a religious person talks about prophets.
@timmarshall7292
Ай бұрын
Hundreds of millions have 50 State options with thousands of options; give a big central government power and the Citizens have only the option of submission.
@paradoxparty
Ай бұрын
@@timmarshall7292 A slave is no less a slave because they can pick between several masters. A gang is no less criminal because you can move to another neighborhood under different gang territory. Plus, I doubt even you believe in what you say. Do you think NYC and Cali should be able to restrict guns as they please? Unless you do, you are not supporting their states rights.
@timmarshall7292
Ай бұрын
@@paradoxparty I understand the Federal Government was meant to be limited with the only responsibility of protecting Liberty and three tools to accomplish this task: National Defense (not Foreign Government Interventionism and Proxy Wars); Interstate Commerce (Interstate Highways, Currency, Communications and such); Foreign Affairs (doing business with those Nations who wish to do business with our Nation). Taking the Rights from one human and giving Rights to another human is not the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
Пікірлер: 293