• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trump judge nominee, 36, who has never tried a case, wins approval of Senate panel

TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Alcott said:
Is that a Yes or a No?
Click to expand...
What best constitutes a proper qualification? "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." I remember a young infantry Sergeant in WWII who lacked any seeming qualification to lead an Infantry platoon, and was, in fact denied enlistment by the Navy and the Marine Corps and, initially, by the Army too. Yet Audie Murphy did so, heroically, and received the Medal of Honor for his service, stopping an enemy charge and leading a counter charge while wounded and out of ammunition. And was commissioned and eventually rose to the rank of Major.

Including the Medal of Honor noted above he also received
The Distinguished Service Cross
The Silver Star (Twice)
The Legion of Merit
The Bronze Star Medal (Twice)
Purple Heart (Three times)
The Army Good Conduct Medal
U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force Presidential Unit Citation (Twice)
The American Campaign Medal
The European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign
African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal (9 campaigns)
The World War II Victory Medal
The Army of Occupation Medal with Germany clasp
The Legion Honneur Chevalier
The Ruban de la croix de guerre 1939-1945
The French Croix de Guerre with silver star
The Croix de guerre with palm (France)
The Croix de Guerre (Belgium)
The French fourragère in colors of the Croix de Guerre
The Combat Infantry Badge
The Markesman Weapons Qual Badge Rifle Component Bar
The Army Expert Badge with Bayonet Component Bar
The USA - Army Outstanding Civilian Service Award
The Texas Legislative Medal of Honor

Not bad for a guy considered "unqualified" by all three branches of service.
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Earth Wind and Fire said:
You consider BO Care constitutional? If so, you and I at different vantage points.

Hell is empty....The Tempest
Click to expand...
SCOTUS ruled on the issue before them, that Congress has the right to levy taxes. The Constitution is very clear about that.

And, yes, I suspect we have very different perspectives on the subject. I believe the Constitution is our supreme law of the land. You, apparently, don't. I don't believe in an activist court. You apparently do. I believe in judicial restraint. You apparently don't.
 
FollowTheWay

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Rob_BW said:
Meh, we have an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court who's first judgeship was...her seat on the United States Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
Kagan is the first justice appointed without any prior experience as a judge since William Rehnquist in 1972.[ Then Rehnquist was also not qualified? Actually, she served as the Solicitor General and Solicitors General have been considered potential nominees to the Supreme Court in the past.
 
FollowTheWay

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Ziggy said:
Al Mohler, as I recall, had never served in a seminary or college as either faculty or lower-level administration before being made President of Southern Seminary based on his work as editor of the Georgia Baptist Christian Index. Guess that choice must have been wrong also?
Click to expand...
Actually, it was. Southern Seminary had a well-respected faculty before Mueller arrived and served as the hatchet man fot the fundamentalists who took over the SBC in a very divisive way.
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Earth Wind and Fire said:
You consider BO Care constitutional? If so, you and I at different vantage points.
Click to expand...
No, as written, it was Un-Constitutional. Obama and Congress explicitly said it was not a tax. The Courts took an unprecedented leap and corrected the improperly written law instead of striking it down. The court was in error. The court was outside their Constitutional authority. They do not have the power to re-write legislation.

"In answering that question [whether the individual mandate is independently authorized by Congress's taxing power] we must, if "fairly possible", Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932), construe the provision to be a tax rather than a mandate-with-penalty, since that would render it constitutional rather than unconstitutional (ut res magis valeat quam pereat). But we cannot rewrite the statute to be what it is not. "'[A]lthough this Court will often strain to construe legislation so as to save it against constitutional attack, it must not and will not carry this to the point of perverting the purpose of a statute ...' or judicially rewriting it." Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Schor, 478 U. S. 833, 841 (1986) (quoting Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 515 (1964), in turn quoting Scales v. United States, 367 U. S. 203, 211 (1961)). In this case, there is simply no way, "without doing violence to the fair meaning of the words used", Grenada County Supervisors v. Brogden, 112 U. S. 261, 269 (1884), to escape what Congress enacted: a mandate that individuals maintain minimum essential coverage, enforced by a penalty."
 
Last edited:
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Reynolds said:
No, as written, it was Un-Constitutional. Obama and Congress explicitly said it was not a tax.
Click to expand...
No, it wasn't unconstitutional. Calling a tax a "not-a-tax" doesn't change the fact it was a tax, as SCOTUS clearly and correctly ruled.
 
R

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
FollowTheWay said:
There is no such thing as the far left.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. In today's world the founding Fathers would be call far right but they are the standard in this country. The far left are those who are on the opposite end of the standard for this country. Those who support the founding principles are only supporting the primary standard for this country therefore they cannot be far anything. They are right where they should be unlike those who support your extreme (being hat which is in opposition to the founding of this country)
 
Reynolds

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
TCassidy said:
No, it wasn't unconstitutional. Calling a tax a "not-a-tax" doesn't change the fact it was a tax, as SCOTUS clearly and correctly ruled.
Click to expand...
It was not passed in the appropriate manner to levy a tax. It was not passed as a tax. It was expressly passed as a civil law. The law should have been struck down and been forced to be passed through tax appropriations. The dessenting opinion is Constitutionally correct. The Court knew it would never re-pass, so Roberts fixed it instead of doing his strict Constitutional duty of striking it.
 
TCassidy

TCassidy

Late-Administator Emeritus
Administrator
Reynolds said:
It was not passed in the appropriate manner to levy a tax. It was not passed as a tax. It was expressly passed as a civil law. The law should have been struck down and been forced to be passed through tax appropriations. The dessenting opinion is Constitutionally correct. The Court knew it would never re-pass, so Roberts fixed it instead of doing his strict Constitutional duty of striking it.
Click to expand...
Check your constitution and see if it ways "the appropriations committee" or "Congress" has the authority to levy taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top