View Poll Results: Do We Still Need the SCOTUS?

Voters
35. You may not vote on this poll
  • No...it serves no real purpose.

    2 5.71%
  • Yes..we must have something to protect our Constitution.

    26 74.29%
  • We only need it when they agree with my guys.

    3 8.57%
  • It's not that simple...I'll explain

    4 11.43%
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 63

Thread: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

  1. #11
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,463

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Do We Still Need the SCOTUS to protect the constitution?



    Is probably a better question.


    We already have lobbyists and politicians to shred it.
    Thank you

  2. #12
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,909

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    It would seem "Some" folks now believe the Supreme Court of the United States to be an irrelevant body, as the decisions that come down are no longer the last word on our constitution. Between the Roe v.Wade issue, Immigration, and now ACA, they have decided to fight to the death regardless of law.

    So...whats the point?
    First, could you tell me who the "Some" are?

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    First, could you tell me who the "Some" are?
    The answer to that question will turn this thread into a pissing contest rather than an actual discussion.

  4. #14
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,593

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    No, it is not necessary. It's not irrelevant, but it's a barrier to fair and efficient determinations of what is and is not constitutional.

    It's inherently unfair because it puts the power to decide constitutionality into the hands of too few individuals. Such a concentration of power is dangerous in and of itself as it enables its decisions to be influenced strongly by interests of the elite in our society rather than the constitutionality of the laws in question.

    It's inherently inefficient because of the time it takes to come to decisions. This inefficiency leads to one main problem: unconstitutional laws may be in effect for long periods of time which causes Americans to live under unjust laws and have their rights infringed upon for unacceptable periods of time.

    A better solution would be to determine the constitutionality of a proposed law in Congress before it is even put on the floor for consideration.
    I agree. The idea of making a constitutional amendment requiring ALL FEDERAL laws to be "single subject/purpose/cost" is needed, stating on PAGE ONE of all laws put before congress, a brief summary of the purpose of the law, the constitutional basis for that law and its projected annual funding/cost for ten years should be required. The use of omnibus bills like the "farm" bill that is 80% SNAP benefits and a bunch of pork would surely fail that single purpose test. But this is a CONGRESSIONAL function, that would aid the SCOTUS.

    The SCOTUS should briefly review each law as it is passed, BEFORE it is signed into law, to assure it meets constitutional muster. The big problem is that once billions are spent that the SCOTUS is very reluctant to make a purely "legal" or "constitutional" assessment of the law, a perfect example is that the ENTIRE DOEd, the fastest growing, cabinet level, federal dept. is NOT based on ANY constitutional power, as education appears NOWHERE as a constitutional federal power, in fact, there are NO federal schools, just a bunch of income redistribution and mandates placed upon the state's schools. The states, recieving ample federal "bribes" will not sue over this, as they are willling to accept the "free" funding as long as the "strings attached" are not too bad to abide.

    Once ANY federal dept./agency is started it morphs into some ever larger beast given more money and power every year with NO review at all, either by congress or the SCOTUS. The PPACA is a prime example of smoke and mirrors law, that even in "outline" form is over 2,400 pages of nonsense, much of it describing panels, committees and boards that will "supply details later" making it virtually impossible to define its EVENTUAL true cost/effect on anyone. This law should have been rejected on that basis ALONE.

    We have now established that the federal gov't may levy a tax (or fine or fee) upon any citizen (or business) for NOT complying with an unfunded mandate to purchase gov't specified PRIVATE goods and services. This has NO constituional basis and certainly no precedent. Even a moron can see the difference between taxing (or exempting from taxation) an ACTION TAKEN or a CONDIDTION MET and taxing an ACTION NOT TAKEN or CONDITION NOT MET.

    Allowing a tax break for having minor children, is FAR different from assessing a tax on those that DO NOT have minor children. Some argue that the net effect is the same, but that is NOT so, that is akin to saying instead of allowing an extra personal exemption for those 65 or older we will subtract a personal exemption for all those under 65. The amount of tax money involved is the same, but all can see a clear difference in that instead of 2% getting a $2K tax break 98% got a $2K tax increase, and for something entirely out of their control, their date of birth.

    The PPACA law says, in effect, those that have employer provided medical care insurance, get not only that tax free benefit in their job compensation package, but that those that DO NOT must pay a tax to help subsidize those that DO; they are, in essense, being taxed twice ONLY because their job compensation package includes only salary and other benefits. This law, if made "right" would expose the great LIE of PPACA, those already rewarded with FREE medical care insurance provided as a job benefit (and, by extension, those INSURANCE COMPANIES that now profit from them), will get extra rewards by gov't mandated taxation of those that do not choose to buy (OR provide to their employees) "private" medical insurance.

    Since the taxation rate on employer provided medical care insurance was already ZERO, (for both the employer and the employee) it was IMPOSSIBLE to go any lower so Obama, and the left, decided to tax those (both employer and emploee) now NOT getting that tax break, for simply NOT getting that tax break. Yes they did!
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 07-02-12 at 11:30 AM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  5. #15
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,909

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    The answer to that question will turn this thread into a pissing contest rather than an actual discussion.
    So identifying the OP's subject isn't possible without a pissing contest? Really?

    Too bad then because I honestly don't know who the "some" are, which is why I asked.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    So identifying the OP's subject isn't possible without a pissing contest? Really?

    Too bad then because I honestly don't know who the "some" are, which is why I asked.
    Maybe it is possible, but usually focusing on the people making the argument just leads to everyone arguing about the people instead of the actual argument.

  7. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    without the SCOTUS, we will become a dictatorship.

  8. #18
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
    It would seem "Some" folks now believe the Supreme Court of the United States to be an irrelevant body, as the decisions that come down are no longer the last word on our constitution. Between the Roe v.Wade issue, Immigration, and now ACA, they have decided to fight to the death regardless of law.

    So...whats the point?
    The fact that decisions are mostly based on political ideology instead of based on the constitution is probably why people will fight to death on certain issues. The fact is SC judges are picked because of ideology and SC judges do not always consult just the constitution sometimes the consult foreign law.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

  9. #19
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,463

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    without the SCOTUS, we will become a dictatorship.


    If they dont do their jobs impartially its worse than not having them at all.

    Just just facts maam.....
    Thank you

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by akyron View Post
    If they dont do their jobs impartially its worse than not having them at all.

    Just just facts maam.....
    just cause' they make decisions that you don't like, doesn't mean they aren't doing their job with honesty & integrity.

    calling for the destruction of the SCOTUS, simply because they make findings you hate, is kind of unAmerican.

Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •