Polls

democrats

President Trump will be selecting a Supreme Court justice to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy. What is the most important factor the president should consider when making his selection? (You may select two)

Sponsored by:

If You Enjoy Polls Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
98 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
The Freezing Senior
The Freezing Senior
6 years ago

Let’s see if we can get Maxine Waters expelled from Congress – please sign the petition and help to MAGA !
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/expulsion-maxine-waters-remove-her-congress

Brian B
Brian B
6 years ago

The Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973 must be revisited. President Trump’s nominee for Associate Supreme Court Justice must be willing to overturn the abortion ruling that has since destroyed millions of the innocent unborn in America.
This horrible stain upon our nation is a holocaust on a par with the atrocities of Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Mussolini and Hirohito, wherein millions of innocent lives were destroyed via the tyranny of power-hungry war-mongers.
The mainstream media insist that the abortion ruling won’t be revisited because, no matter who is ultimately confirmed, the “majority” of Americans want the 1973 ruling to stand. And since the liberal MSM almost never gets anything right, the ACTUAL majority will most certainly prove them wrong.
The new Justice must be willing to revisit previous Supreme Court rulings, specifically those that have infringed on Constitutional guarantees.

Buddy
Buddy
6 years ago

“… The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. …”
James Madison

John
John
6 years ago

While precedent is important, providing consistency and guidance, it is more important to always seek truth. Following error will lead our nation further from what is true and just.

'@ItstheRepublic
'@ItstheRepublic
6 years ago

The Republic only survives through the Constitution.

Craig Hearn
Craig Hearn
6 years ago

We must mind that if we are going to be a constitutionally governed country we must place the Constitution above or primary to all other beliefs regarding governance.
We must mind that there are times when being constitutionally governed the Constitution will be at odds with our other beliefs.
We must mind that Freedom and Freedom of A, B, C and X, Y, Z applies to everyone. Period, exclamation point!
Freedom is not free, not easy and not fair because it is Freedom.

David
David
6 years ago

If the new justice is truly committed to the Constitution (and doesn’t just parrot it during the hearings to get Congress’s ok), his decisions will take care of themselves: if a new law is repugnant to the Constitution, it gets thrown out.

Bryan
Bryan
6 years ago

Nominate a constitutionalist who is not afraid to rule against precedent.
Take the left to their lowest of low. Give them the rest of the rope that will completely define them for who they really are.
Problem is the coward RINOs in the senate; for job security Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski must pander to the left. Then there is the guys from Arizona one that killed repealing Obamacare, so vane, he won’t give voice back to the state for proper representation in DC and the other such a disgrace calling him RINO is too high of a standard for him.

If the republican record holds true to form, Garland will be our next Supreme Court Justice.

Mike H
Mike H
6 years ago

One selection down three more to go!

Brenda E. Barry
Brenda E. Barry
6 years ago

The selection should be so amazingly outstanding the Left and Democrats would look foolish for not accepting the President’s choice.

Wayne Capurro
Wayne Capurro
6 years ago

None of the above. Protecting the rights of the individual are the most important consideration.

Karen Domengeaux
Karen Domengeaux
6 years ago

Commitment to our Constitution and God’s word ; they do work together. Thank you Heavenly Father for your amazing grace and mercy You’ve shown to us all! Thank you for healing our land and bringing us back to the foundational truths this nation was founded upon! Amen!

Bruce Viechnicki
Bruce Viechnicki
6 years ago

Adhering to the Constition as written is important to the future of this Country.

Constitutionalist
Constitutionalist
6 years ago

Adhering to the Constitution in the laymans terms in which it is written, NOT as they want to interpret it to say. What is says in its simplest form. PERIOD!

Barbara Packard
Barbara Packard
6 years ago

I’m sorry, hard to take the poll, when I don’t understand the possible responses.
What do you mean by Observing stare decisis?

Linda Hutson
Linda Hutson
6 years ago

Commitment to the Constitution will include revisiting prior rulings!

rmotz
rmotz
6 years ago

Stick to the Constitution! Our founders were some amazing men,they were a head of their time.

Garland Young
Garland Young
6 years ago

It’s apparent we have had some in the Suprine Court who were interested in making laws than inrurpiting

Garland Young
Garland Young
6 years ago

It’s obvious we have had S.C. Members who were willing to overstep there authority and make laws rather than interpreting the contistution. 4 times come to mind. Prayer in public school Ten Comandments. Obortion Same sex marriage. I cannot find a place where our constitution spoke to any of these.

Buddy
Buddy
6 years ago

America is a nation guided and guarded by laws, not precedents.

Jim Monson
Jim Monson
6 years ago

If the high court uses only the Constitution and amendments as their base, all the rest of the matter will be followed. Judges are there only to interpret the laws, not to make the laws. We elected the congress and senate to draft and pass laws. Judges sole purpose are to uphold and follow the rule of law when making their judgements in any given case. Yes, we need to reverse the Roe vs Wade decision. That was done in 1973 by judges. It has disrupted all the natural laws of supply and demand. Can you imagine most all of those 60,000,000. plus people we have denied life. Many of them would be consumers and tax paying citizens now. We would not likely have the huge national debt today, if they had been allowed to live. Not to mention, man jumping in circumvent God’s decision on who can live and who must die. God help us.

Fred Behling
Fred Behling
6 years ago

I’ve read all the replies from those who chose to reply…..Amac readers are true Americans, and proud to say l’m a fellow Amac reader.GOD Bless you all!

Dean W. Handy
Dean W. Handy
6 years ago

Whoever the nominee might be he/she must be able and willing to suffer the slings and arrows of the “Left” as they attempt to totally destroy the reputation of the nominee and his/her family!

Bill
Bill
6 years ago

God Almighty, though he is longsuffering, eventually judges all wicked nations. Considering our spiritual foundation based on general Biblical principles we are doomed. The economy and other important topics of concern are meaningless if we do not consider the moral topics, ex. abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, as the primary considerations. Many great nations in times past were extremely rich but their immoral practices saw their collapse.

Yes, there should most definitely be a litmus test for these immoral practices. Sir John Glubb, wrote “The Fate of Nations” and described how all of the great nations and empires of the last 3,000 years all vanished because of deviant practices and the average lifespan was around 250 years. Guess how many years America is approaching?

Christian and all people combined know that we are reveling in the sewers with such abominations as transgenderism that common sense tells us is wrong. Though some things seem to be improving we are still being judged already whenever our recent rulers are afraid to make a so-called litmus test (first popularized by the Left) regarding abortion, homosexuality, etc.

Jeremiah 2:11

Tony
Tony
6 years ago

Sen Ben Cardin believes the Supreme Court must reflect the will of the people. Sorry Sen but that’s why we vote for senators and congressmen . The Supreme Court Justice must reflect the CONSITITUTION and decide accordingly . Not make decisions based on what is popular. This is why judges are appointed for life and not subject to periodic elections ‼️

Martin Steed
Martin Steed
6 years ago

Since the Constitution is a very simple document, easy for any non-lawyer to understand, I would really like to see a non-lawyer appointed to the Supreme Court. Of course, that will never happen, but it would be a novel choice. FYI, there is no requirement for a judge to be a lawyer.

J. P. Johnson
J. P. Johnson
6 years ago

As most AMAC members know, the Constitution is to be only changed through Ammendment , not by a single swing vote of one self-important jurist. The failure to follow this procedure has resulted in the deep divisions our country now experiences. JPJ

Everett Long
Everett Long
6 years ago

Our Constitution is a “Living Document” proven for over 200 years. Any, and all, deviations from the Constitution has always been and will always be to only serve harm to the America we know.

joe O
joe O
6 years ago

Commit to constitution is to general and poorly worded. All justices take that oath.

The court must revoke those decisions that were made by the court but should be made by our elected representatives.

Is not the mission of the court to determine only if a law was put into place in accordance with the frame work of the constitution?

q1dhm
q1dhm
6 years ago

“Commitment to the Constitution of the United Sates” and “willingness to override precedent” are basically the same thing.

steve
steve
6 years ago

First and foremost is a respect for and a determination to be guided by the constitution. It is the only thing standing between us and radical insanity from EITHER side of the aisle. Next, the justice has to be open to the idea of rejecting precedents and drafting new decisions when the issue crops up again. Judges are people are are not perfect. They make mistakes. And situations change. A decision that might have been the right idea at one time can be problematic now, in the light of current realities. Experience is not to be dismissed lightly, but one presumes and hopes that these nominees are intelligent and gifted people who will be able to figure out what to do in short order. And it is not like they are in this alone. They are guided by 8 other judges as well as ample, well experienced support staff. They will make it work.

That said…

Much of the discussion here is centered around abortion, and that is fitting as it is such a weighty issue. But if we have learned nothing else from out legislative experiments, it is that we really can’t outlaw anything. Oh, we can make laws and we can punish the people who break the laws (assuming we catch and convict them) but we have not prevented anything, the offensive act having already been committed. The best we can hope for is that a law gives one pause for thought and maybe prevents the crime. The key word here being maybe. And so long as there are people offensive acts will continue to plague us, laws notwithstanding. Abortion is a key case in point. If we do no more than tell a desperate young girl that she can not have a legal abortion she will do whatever she can to find a remedy to her problem. If that means seeking a back alley butcher or doing jumping jacks until she miscarries, that is what she will do.

So merely telling people “You can’t do that” isn’t always the best option. True in some instances it may be the only option, because the wrongdoer goes into the crime with malice aforethought and believes that he will not get caught, or reacts regrettably in the heat of the moment. You can’t talk or help him out of it, the best you can hope for is that he gets caught in the act and does not hurt anyone. In the case of abortion, though, women do not go into this with the intent of committing an offensive act, whether it is criminal or not, they are simply seeking a solution to a problem. Yes, in some – no, far too many – instances this is merely a convenience or recreational issue but at the opposite extreme for some it is a matter of (their) life or death, should they get found out, or they believe this to be so, and simply outlawing this offensive act will not do anything good for them.

What am I proposing? 1. Abortion must be recognized for what it is, murder, and the murderer (abortionist) should be prosecuted as such. I am not backing away from or diminishing that reality. 2. It is not good enough to merely tell a frantic young woman “You can’t do that” and leave it there, as so many of the odious faith based groups do. They issue edicts then stand around and pray while looking down their noses and sneering at the “sinners” and doing nothing to help. We need instead to say, “You can’t do that, but here is how we can help you out of the situation you are in. We can offer medical assistance to assure the health of you and your baby. We can provide physical protection if you feel your life is in danger from a furious boyfriend or zealot parent. We can provide you with a home until the baby arrives, if you need one. We can find good and loving parents for the baby should you not for whatever reason feel you can be a good parent. And if you do choose to keep the baby we can help you become the good mother you want to be. 3. We MUST identify the baby’s father and cause him to take his share of the responsibility for the baby he helped create. He’s just as pregnant as she is and has to acknowledge that fact. No, he will not carry the baby in his body for nine months, and he won’t feel the pains of labor. But he should experience labor of another sort, taking one of those many open jobs we keep hearing about to help support his family. 4. We have to change our education system to place human life above all other considerations. We have to create the life-loving mindset that makes the mere thought of taking the life of a tiny unborn infant so hideous, so egregious, so nightmarish, that no one would ever even begin to consider it as some sort of solution.

If we do these things will we end all abortions? Sadly, no. But we will be able to rest secure in the knowledge that we have done all we could do to stop this hideous crime against life, whether or not it is legal.

q1dhm
q1dhm
6 years ago

Commitment to the constitution demands willingness to overrule precedent. This is desperately needed!

William McKinney
William McKinney
6 years ago

Well,well isn’t wonderful our President Donald John Trump, is about to upset the apple ? cart of the Anti American ,Anti Baby,Anti Gun,Anti Constitutional ,Anti God,Anti Liberty and Anti Everything Good that this Republic ,America was founded to be. The deepstate and the Socialist Communist Democratic Party are about to go completely insane ! Magnificent ! They will be jumping out of sky scrapers ,off bridges and God knows what else and I absolutely love ? it ! lol ! Just think there will be more replacements to the USSC due to retirement ,illness and thd old Grim Reaper himself. The Communist may prevoke civil war but most of these clowns wouldn’t and don’t know anything about guns. Fools ! May the dance begin.

Mike Coons
Mike Coons
6 years ago

I voted the last choice. Have been hearing a lot about precedence relating to Roe v Wade. But if you look at the Union dues situation that over-rode precedence of a 6-3 decision that upheld requiring paying union dues and being a union member. Then of course how many other bad rulings have been overturned. Dredd Scott? Jim Crow, to name just two. I don’t know if Roe can be fully overturned or not, but there appears to be major parts that may well be reversed.
If you think about it, how many decades of really bad decisions have been made by a political Supreme Court? How many decades have the 4 radical justices we have now on the bench been there and made terrible rulings. Like President Trump who is, almost on a daily basic, reversing Obama’s “legacy of socialism” why can’t we do the same with the courts? Think about the huge impact if Ginsburg retires or dies in office? How about Stephen G. Breyer? Both are possibles if we can keep President Trump for a full 8 years and then either VP Pence or another strong conservative for the next 8! Reversing decades old socialism would be in our grasp and the full reinstatement of our rights is possible!

Lydia Evans
Lydia Evans
6 years ago

I believe in respecting the leaders of this wonderful nation. I wish some of the liberal news people would realize that whether they agree or disagree with our elected leaders including our current president, President Trump, they should strive for unity, not division. “United we stand, divided we fall.” Our leaders should try to find common ground and try to work together, not tear one another down.

Mary Sells
Mary Sells
6 years ago

When folks say, “Roe V Wade shouldn’t be overturned, it has been on the books for 40+ years, ” my response is, to remind folks, of some very bad laws that had been on the books for a very long time. I’m not arguing for or against Roe V Wade, I’m arguing for Logical reasons, Constitutional reasons, for keeping a law or overturning a law.

dwight d jamison
dwight d jamison
6 years ago

The constitution forbids the court to make or unmake law. Therefor the congress must direct the court to stop doing so. Secondly the congress should address all such past actions taken by the court.

Margaret
Margaret
6 years ago

The last poll choice…….the key word is ‘willingness’. That doesn’t mean going in with the idea that changes ‘are going to be made’. Sometimes precedents become outdated or irrelevant. If a case were to be brought before the court that the precedent doesn’t quite fit; a ‘willingness’ to make changes to clarify or overturn or whatever is important. The ‘we’ve always done it this way’ or ‘the law has been on the books 100 years’, doen’t fly. Times change and sometimes it’s necessary for our judicial system to address those changes.

Margaret
Margaret
6 years ago

Kennedy got out while the getting was good. The other liberal leaning judges will not be able to retire because of the lashing they would get from the Dems.

Bob G
Bob G
6 years ago

I cannot imagine how any of the choices wouldn’t be a part of the consideration. Some more or less to break ties. Bottom line for me is the ability to compartmentalize each case and apply all of the above, i.e. no case is exactly the same as another. While treating each case separately the justice must be consistent with the application of their judgement.

Dave
Dave
6 years ago

The first choice “Commitment to the Constitution” was poorly written. It should have read ” Commitment to the Constitution in the meaning and interpretation of its words at the time of its writing” and that would have covered the last one “Willingness to revisit or overrule Court precedent”

M. Rosson
M. Rosson
6 years ago

My main concern is that judges should rule “exactly by how the Constitution is written” and not by how they “interpret the Constitution.” The writers of our Constitution went to great pains to word the Constitution so that it would say (and mean) exactly what they intended it to say.

Duke
Duke
6 years ago

The term used to describe prior court precedent is the Latin and legal term ” stare decisis ” which I continue to here mispronounced by TV pundits and even some lawyers in discussion . The proper pronunciation is ( star a day see sis (as in sister) ) In Latin, a=ah e=a and i =e ! I cringe when I here it mispronounced , particularly by those who should know better. The law is full of Latin references .

I believe the Constitution is , above all else, controlling . And, if prior court decisions were badly adjudicated ( as was clearly the case in Roe vs. Wade and the case of so called “same sex” marriage ) they should be open to re-visitation. Judges should not “legislate from the bench” in an attempt to create “rights” which are nowhere to be found in the Constitution. The rights we enjoy are not government created rights but are rights “endowed by our Creator” . It is clear that the Creator (God) would not bestow upon us any right to kill innocent children in their mother’s womb or to join together those whose joining is prohibited and impossible, according to God’s own Natural Law.

These extra-Constitutional man made edicts are not only judicially improper, they violate the soul and conscience of humanity itself. They are an abomination and a moral sacrilege . This is not what our Founding Fathers envisioned
for this “Nation Under God” !

Charles
Charles
6 years ago

I want to see Nancy, Chuck & Maxine spinning with their evil insane rhetoric as the midterms approach. Enjoy your summer vacation. The Don should use that time to appoint by executive order his pick while they are in recess. Spin em up Donald!

Stephen Kirtland
Stephen Kirtland
6 years ago

This is not a matter of politics. There is NO argument to be made against a judge candidate with a demonstrated commitment to the preservation of the original word and spirit of the Constitution, including all its amendments. The original spirit can be found from the Constitution Preamble, the original debate for adoption of the Constitution, and the principles of liberty enshrined in the Bill of Rights, which clearly limit the powers of the federal government in ALL its branches. But the most important words defining the spirit of liberty in the Constitution are the first three words: “We the people…” All Supreme Court decisions must be made in conformance with the Constitution, not in conformance with popular appeals to emotion.

Barbara
Barbara
5 years ago

What’s the point of having a Constitution if judges are going to overrule it?

Wes
Wes
5 years ago

It must be a commitment to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the experience of the person being considered. All three are important!

98
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x