The Founding Fathers Warned Us About the Powers of the Supreme Court

[DaSleeper]

A bad law is one that doesn't withstand the constitutional test. Nothing more or nothing less. Any court can legally change any law, that's the whole point of courts. But at least they use a standard to measure with. Not the flavour of the day that you get with politics.



Somehow I think their judicial statements are going to be more wordy than that. They are lawyers after all.

Just because you have a group of like minded individuals doesn't mean the decisions they make are equitable, fair minded or not harmful.A yardstick is needed, one that is not emotionally biased or prejudicial.

There is a reason why this

is the symbol of justice.



I'm not so naive as to believe there is no influence on the courts, it is not a perfect system but it is as perfect as humanly possible. Most people believe, they truly believe, that what they are most passionate about is fair, rational and just. But there's always another opinion, another side, equally as passionate that disagrees. How does anyone decide which side is "right"? By applying the law. The law is cold, rational, logical. It is imbued with enough reasonableness and information of the human condition to make it palatable. And people that truly have no horse in the race can usually see that it is, indeed, fair and equitable. Whether they like it or not.

Two of those judges had already performed same sex marriage marriage ceremonies in their previous practice.......were they truly unbiased? ...shouldn't they have recused themselves? a lot of things can change a vote that is not unanimous.....

 

[Kreskin]

Two of those judges had already performed same sex marriage marriage ceremonies in their previous practice.......were they truly unbiased? ...shouldn't they have recused themselves? a lot of things can change a vote that is not unanimous.....

Scalia worked for the Nixon administration. If bias is a legitimate reason shouldn't he recuse himself from any decision effecting government, particularly Republicans?

 

[SLM]

Two of those judges had already performed same sex marriage marriage ceremonies in their previous practice.......were they truly unbiased? ...shouldn't they have recused themselves? a lot of things can change a vote that is not unanimous.....

Again though, there is a yardstick called the constitution that the decisions are measured against. Juries are expected to do this all the time, and the general consensus is that they do a very good job with it. And these are laymen, not learned about the law.

 

[EagleSmack]

and if they didn't, or couldn't, you could very well end up with "tyranny of the majority".




Would you like slavery made legal again because "the majority want it"?

Is majority rule always so tyrannical?


And as was pointed out slavery did not end in the SJC... and what if they ruled after the Civil War that slavery was legal and the southern states have the right to own slaves?

 

[DaSleeper]

Juries have to be all of the same opinion on a decision...not a majority of one

 

[EagleSmack]

There is a reason why this

is the symbol of justice.

I don't always think the courts use that.

Juries have to be all of the same opinion on a decision...not a majority of one

At times depending on the case.

 

[Walter]

But we do wonder Where was all this “five unelected judges” chatter when they handed down Citizens United?

The Dems went nuts when that decision came down.
Have the 4 politicians on the court, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan, ever voted differently from each other?

 

[Kreskin]

You guys need to get a new utopian ammendment proposed.

 

[EagleSmack]

If justice is blind then why are liberals pressuring Ginsberg to step down? She is a liberal judge. They are doing it because she is very old and may kick the bucket if the next President is a Republican and they want Obama to appoint another liberal judge who will vote that way each time.

You guys need to get a new utopian ammendment proposed.

Great idea!


Whose Utopia?

 

[Kreskin]

If justice is blind then why are liberals pressuring Ginsberg to step down? She is a liberal judge. They are doing it because she is very old and may kick the bucket if the next President is a Republican and they want Obama to appoint another liberal judge who will vote that way each time.




Great idea!


Whose Utopia?

The right. Amendment 41 - all Supreme Court decisions are subject to veto by right-leaning guys on the internet.

 

[Walter]

How many justices are homosexuals? Kagan for sure.

 

[DaSleeper]

Someone, a provincial judge actually, told me that justice not only has to be just and fair but also have the "appearance" of being fair for the public to trust it....

 

[Walter]

6 RC's and 3 Jews, no protestants?

 

[EagleSmack]

The right. Amendment 41 - all Supreme Court decisions are subject to veto by right-leaning guys on the internet.

Awesome! I'm digging that.


But what if we want things like gay marriage to stay in place? Because I am behind that SJC decision.

 

[SLM]

If justice is blind then why are liberals pressuring Ginsberg to step down? She is a liberal judge. They are doing it because she is very old and may kick the bucket if the next President is a Republican and they want Obama to appoint another liberal judge who will vote that way each time.

Because politics, not just politics, but partisan politics is running amok. That's the sh!t that needs to be reigned in. If that gets reigned in, and yeah I do understand that's one mother of a big if, but if it were then all these other problems you're talking about? Poof, in a puff of smoke.

 

[Kreskin]

It's been like that since Washington got hit in the head with an apple. Presidents appointing their chosen SCJ's is nothing new.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

How about making a decision that really isn't "against" the constitution... they just would rather it be so.

FAIL

It's not possible for the Supremes to make a decision that's against the Constitution.

 

[EagleSmack]

It's not possible for the Supremes to make a decision that's against the Constitution.

Because their decision is pretty much final right?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Because their decision is pretty much final right?

Yes. They have the authority to interpret the Constitution. Therefore their interpretation is authoritative.

The "checks and balances" on the Court are ultimately that they have no way of enforcing their rulings.

 

[EagleSmack]

Yes. They have the authority to interpret the Constitution. Therefore their interpretation is authoritative.

Therein rests my beef.


"Yada yada it's unconstitutional... Dinner's ready! LAtta!

The "checks and balances" on the Court are ultimately that they have no way of enforcing their rulings.

That answered a question I was going to ask. You shaman?