Federal Judge: U.S. Constitution Is Outdated, Judges Should Stop Studying It

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: xuenchen

Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

www.law.cornell.edu...

bold is mine.


Oh, the irony!

hahahahahahahahaha

Has he failed in any of those duties?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Dunno.

I can only go by his statements.

Constitution?

meh.

a reply to: xuenchen

No way!

What? That's the most absurd thing I have ever heard, and I hear an awful lot of strange things. You try living here without hearing some loony talking to the space frogs while walking home from the doctors office. It gets to you.

Anyway, this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard by a long stretch. A federal judge, basically giving the constitution of the United States of America the finger? Who the hell does this bone head think he is? The man is clearly deluded!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Dunno.

I can only go by his statements.

Constitution?

meh.

Based on his statements, numerous folks in this thread have called for him to be removed from the bench. They would happily violate his 1st A rights, in order to defame his character. He has as much right as any American to voice his opinion.

a reply to: xuenchen

I think we are done.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: xuenchen

I think we are done.

Yep a piece of paper that is the guarantor of INALIENABLE RIGHTS is outdated.

Based on actually reading the articles, and not the snippets. He feels that a document that was written in the 18th century does not meet the needs of our 21st century culture, technology etc. The comments were basically taken out of context, as he was discussing why law schools needed to hire professors with more practical experience, rather than constitutional scholars.

a reply to: BubbaJoe

If I'm a baker, and I choose not to bake cakes for gays, then I'm not really doing my job, am I.

Of course, all I'm doing is practicing my 1st Amendment rights, right?

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: xuenchen

I think we are done.

Yep a piece of paper that is the guarantor of INALIENABLE RIGHTS is outdated.

What part of "It only guaranteed those rights to a portion of the population" do you not understand?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

If I'm a baker, and I choose not to bake cakes for gays, then I'm not really doing my job, am I.

Of course, all I'm doing is practicing my 1st Amendment rights, right?

And if my religion forbids me from doing business with Christians, I am only practicing mine? DBC, we are on a slippery slope here. I can see the hell I would receive from posting a "No Christians Allowed" sign on the door of my business.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Seems this Judge is stationed in Chicago, and lives near the Obama home.

This explains the whole thing.

OK. I'm a 2/3 of the way of seeing what this is about. Who appointed this man to the bench?

a reply to: BubbaJoe

WHAT part of the Bill of Rights and the 14th are the proponents of an 'outdated' piece of paper missing?

It doesn't talk about race.

It doesn't talk about money.

It doesn't talk about sex.

Hell those 11 are UNIVERSAL RULES for ALL.

WHAT needs to be changed ?

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

If I'm a baker, and I choose not to bake cakes for gays, then I'm not really doing my job, am I.

Of course, all I'm doing is practicing my 1st Amendment rights, right?

And if my religion forbids me from doing business with Christians, I am only practicing mine? DBC, we are on a slippery slope here. I can see the hell I would receive from posting a "No Christians Allowed" sign on the door of my business.

Exactly.

And a judge who swears to rule by the Constitution, cannot really stop doing that either.

He's free to find other work where he doesn't have to obey the Constitution. Like politics.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: xuenchen
Seems this Judge is stationed in Chicago, and lives near the Obama home.

This explains the whole thing.

OK. I'm a 2/3 of the way of seeing what this is about. Who appointed this man to the bench?

Believe it or not, Ronald Reagan, 35 years ago.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

If I'm a baker, and I choose not to bake cakes for gays, then I'm not really doing my job, am I.

Of course, all I'm doing is practicing my 1st Amendment rights, right?

And if my religion forbids me from doing business with Christians, I am only practicing mine? DBC, we are on a slippery slope here. I can see the hell I would receive from posting a "No Christians Allowed" sign on the door of my business.

Exactly.

And a judge who swears to rule by the Constitution, cannot really stop doing that either.

He's free to find other work where he doesn't have to obey the Constitution. Like politics.

The OP was taken out of context, he never stated he was not going to obey the constitution, he felt that it was outdated, and wanted law schools to hire professors with more practical experience, rather than constitutional scholars

a reply to: BubbaJoe

Anyone who finds the Constitution "outdated' doesn't deserve to sit in a seat where they are required to rule by it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: BubbaJoe

WHAT part of the Bill of Rights and the 14th are the proponents of an 'outdated' piece of paper missing?

It doesn't talk about race.

It doesn't talk about money.

It doesn't talk about sex.

Hell those 11 are UNIVERSAL RULES for ALL.

WHAT needs to be changed ?

When the constitution and the bill of rights were written, only white male land owners had the right to vote, I suppose in your closed little world you have no problem with that. What part of the fact, that freedom didn't apply to women, didn't apply to blacks etc, cannot you get through your head?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Anyone who finds the Constitution "outdated' doesn't deserve to sit in a seat where they are required to rule by it.

Who was made free by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It is a trick question.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: BubbaJoe

Anyone who finds the Constitution "outdated' doesn't deserve to sit in a seat where they are required to rule by it.

Who was made free by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? It is a trick question.

So you think the Constitution is outdated.

Okay.

Don't ever swear to rule by it then.

See?

Easy solved.

a reply to: xuenchen

Definitely contaminated by the Chicago Democrat arena

So?