• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This is why the SCOTUS needs to be ousted

L

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,587
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.
 
ludin said:
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should be as understanding of the constitution as the founding fathers. You are so right...


Oh wait, the founding fathers argued about what it meant too...
 
It's my understanding that a higher percentage of cases are unanimous than are split.
 
ludin said:
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
Click to expand...
lol

Yes, because there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in any of the provisions of the Constitution. Yes, phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" and "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" are crystal clear.


She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.
Click to expand...
Actually, the vast majority of the time they are relying on their theories of jurisprudence.

Nor will "ousting" the SCOTUS change anything. Whoever replaces them will be selected based on both theories of jurisprudence, on ideology, on expedient political preferences.
 
ludin said:
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.
Click to expand...

She isn't my favorite justice but how did you get that from what she said? A tie vote lets the lower court ruling stand and means that no precedential decision is set for the other circuits. That means the circuits are left to their own devices on important issues which increases the potential for clashes and unequal outcomes. It isn't political to desire conclusive decisions.
 
ludin said:
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.
Click to expand...

I heard somewhere that most of the ruling by the Roberts court have been unanimous. They just don't get reported on by the media because they are not the politically controversial red-herring ones.
 
Redress said:
Yeah, they should be as understanding of the constitution as the founding fathers. You are so right...


Oh wait, the founding fathers argued about what it meant too...
Click to expand...

Yep they did argue but then hey agreed to a set writing.
 
Visbek said:
lol

Yes, because there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in any of the provisions of the Constitution. Yes, phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" and "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" are crystal clear.
Click to expand...

Pretty clear to me.


Actually, the vast majority of the time they are relying on their theories of jurisprudence.

Nor will "ousting" the SCOTUS change anything. Whoever replaces them will be selected based on both theories of jurisprudence, on ideology, on expedient political preferences.
Click to expand...

Which is not their job. If the next set can't uphold the constitution then they can be got rid of as well until
These people get a clue.
 
Sherman123 said:
She isn't my favorite justice but how did you get that from what she said? A tie vote lets the lower court ruling stand and means that no precedential decision is set for the other circuits. That means the circuits are left to their own devices on important issues which increases the potential for clashes and unequal outcomes. It isn't political to desire conclusive decisions.
Click to expand...

There shouldn't be a tie in the first place.
 
Sherman123 said:
She isn't my favorite justice but how did you get that from what she said? A tie vote lets the lower court ruling stand and means that no precedential decision is set for the other circuits. That means the circuits are left to their own devices on important issues which increases the potential for clashes and unequal outcomes. It isn't political to desire conclusive decisions.
Click to expand...

Clearly she is not in synch with Lestor Holt. According to Lester a ruling by a lower court judge means something like stop & frisk is unconstitutional. He did not limit that comment to one court but inferred it was unconstitutional in the U.S. Since I did not hear a single talking head, many of them lawyers, disagree with him he must be correct!
 
washunut said:
Clearly she is not in synch with Lestor Holt. According to Lester a ruling by a lower court judge means something like stop & frisk is unconstitutional. He did not limit that comment to one court but inferred it was unconstitutional in the U.S. Since I did not hear a single talking head, many of them lawyers, disagree with him he must be correct!
Click to expand...

What? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
 
ludin said:
The constitution is pretty clear. So unless you are imputing your own bias into it
There is little question.
Click to expand...

But it isn't objectively 'pretty clear' evidently. It's why we've had divided courts going back to the first Supreme Court.
 
ludin said:
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.
Click to expand...

If Justice Kagan is concerned, she should influence Justice Ginsberg to go ahead and retire (she's 83, BTW), which would give the court an odd number again - there is no requirement in the Constitution for the SCOTUS to have nine justices. Seven justices would provide the exact same imbalance that she is wanting to prevent a tie vote, although probably not in the ideological direction that she is hoping for.

There - fixed.
 
ludin said:
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.
Click to expand...

Dude, I know where you are with this but there is one problem. The world ain't perfect and it will never be.
 
NonoBadDog said:
Dude, I know where you are with this but there is one problem. The world ain't perfect and it will never be.
Click to expand...

This is how our rights get trashed.
 
ludin said:
This is how our rights get trashed.
Click to expand...

I agree totally. The power shifts every two years to some degree or another. We never get new rights but we lose some all the time, incrementally. I am glad I am getting older and I live pretty remote. I can be pretty isolated if I want.
 
Sherman123 said:
She isn't my favorite justice but how did you get that from what she said? A tie vote lets the lower court ruling stand and means that no precedential decision is set for the other circuits. That means the circuits are left to their own devices on important issues which increases the potential for clashes and unequal outcomes. It isn't political to desire conclusive decisions.
Click to expand...

I think they are referring to the assumption that there would be a tie due to the common theory that there are "conservative" judges and "liberal" judges.
 
ludin said:
Pretty clear to me.




Which is not their job. If the next set can't uphold the constitution then they can be got rid of as well until
These people get a clue.
Click to expand...

They actually aren't very clear... and with good reason.

For example... the 4th amendment states that people are to be secure in their <****> from unreasonable searches and seizures.

What exactly constitutes what is and is not reasonable is up to interpretation...... and has changed over time.


Not to mention that somewhere along the line certain individuals (thankfully not judges.. yet) have come to believe that the warrant section of the 4th means that ALL searches require a warrant....... but the two clauses aren't interdependent.
 
Caine said:
They actually aren't very clear... and with good reason.
For example... the 4th amendment states that people are to be secure in their <****> from unreasonable searches and seizures.
What exactly constitutes what is and is not reasonable is up to interpretation...... and has changed over time.
Click to expand...

The only reason it has changed is due to politics not the constitution. We have a definition of words for a reason.

Not to mention that somewhere along the line certain individuals (thankfully not judges.. yet) have come to believe that the warrant section of the 4th means that ALL searches require a warrant....... but the two clauses aren't interdependent.
Click to expand...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

it is pretty self explanatory. It basically says what it says and it doesn't take a law degree to understand or argue it.
 
ludin said:
The constitution is pretty clear. So unless you are imputing your own bias into it
There is little question.
Click to expand...
I always chuckle when people say this.

If it were clear then there wouldn't be any argument. If you think a highly argued portion is clear then you are the one imputing your own bias into it.
 
This is called a preemptive strike. We can expect the SCOTUS to be under constant attack from conservatives and the conservative media for the next 4 to 8 years. They see that Trump is probably going to lose and Clinton will be picking 2-3 Justices. So everything the SCOTUS does, every ruling that even hints of being left of center will come under vicious daily attack.

Including the whole court should be abolished.
 
radcen said:
I always chuckle when people say this.

If it were clear then there wouldn't be any argument. If you think a highly argued portion is clear then you are the one imputing your own bias into it.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I can read. I understand words and definitions.
The only reason people try to debate it is to change what it means through unconstitutional methods.

The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to change the constitution but yet that is what people try to get it to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom