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 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 63

Thread: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

  1. #1
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    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?

  2. #2
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    ......yes.

    Just like we need a president and congressional body. Just because the current members of the three divisions of government are occasionally incapable of following the precedents laid out for them by their predecessors doesn't mean we should eradicate the entire body.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  3. #3
    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?

    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.

  4. #4
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    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.
    How, exactly, is that to happen, and who would be responsible for assuring that it does? Would it not be incredibly likely that those making the decision would be influenced by their own agenda?
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  5. #5
    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 tessaesque View Post
    How, exactly, is that to happen, and who would be responsible for assuring that it does?
    There are three main ways that this could happen:
    1. Have a certain level of constitutional expertise be required for being a member of Congress. The test that determines such expertise would be put together by a diverse committee of constitutional scholars and veteran judges. Because members of Congress would have a more than sufficient understanding of the Constitution, they will vote on the constitutionality of laws within Congress and a super majority will be required for approval.

    2. Create a multi-partisan committee within Congress dedicated to determining the constitutionality of laws.

    3. Have Congress submit proposed laws to a body of judges, who then determine whether or not its constitutional before it is put before the floor.

    4. A combination of any of the above.

    Would it not be incredibly likely that those making the decision would be influenced by their own agenda?
    It's incredibly likely that presidents are also influenced by their own agenda when appointing judges which is why people consider it so important for their own party to appoint them. That's also one of the issues that manifests itself in judicial activism. Interestingly enough, having a single individual appoint judges to the court may open the judgement of constitutionality to more bias than having multi-partisan committees determine constitutionality since the latter ensures that people of different agendas come to the same conclusion while the former opens up the possibility of a stacked court.

  6. #6
    Bring us a shrubbery!
    tessaesque's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Plano, Texas
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 06:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    15,910

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    There are three main ways that this could happen:
    1. Have a certain level of constitutional expertise be required for being a member of Congress. The test that determines such expertise would be put together by a diverse committee of constitutional scholars and veteran judges. Because members of Congress would have a more than sufficient understanding of the Constitution, they will vote on the constitutionality of laws within Congress and a super majority will be required for approval.

    2. Create a multi-partisan committee within Congress dedicated to determining the constitutionality of laws.

    3. Have Congress submit proposed laws to a body of judges, who then determine whether or not its constitutional before it is put before the floor.

    4. A combination of any of the above.


    It's incredibly likely that presidents are also influenced by their own agenda when appointing judges which is why people consider it so important for their own party to appoint them. That's also one of the issues that manifests itself in judicial activism. Interestingly enough, having a single individual appoint judges to the court may open the judgement of constitutionality to more bias than having multi-partisan committees determine constitutionality since the latter ensures that people of different agendas come to the same conclusion while the former opens up the possibility of a stacked court.
    But who creates the committee? Seems to me that the process is open to a great deal of activism in the proposed state, regardless of how many extraneous steps we put into place.

    The current system isn't perfect, but you essentially eliminate one of the constitutional checks on power and further empower congress by instituting congressional-only review of constitutionality.

    Maybe the system of selecting SCOTUS appointees needs revision, instead. Perhaps that would better address the issue without further empowering the other two branches of government beyond an acceptable and fairly representative level.
    "Hmmm...Can't decide if I want to watch "Four Houses" or give myself an Icy Hot pee hole enema..." - Blake Shelton


  7. #7
    Gone

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-16-16 @ 03:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    8,585

    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.

    Wait....you say the SCOTUS takes too long, yet think our congress will be faster?

    You seriously gotta be joking.

  8. #8
    ThunderCougarFalconBird
    roughdraft274's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,040

    Re: Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

    I hate the idea that supreme court decisions are pretty much decided always with certain people on one side and certain people on the other with one or two people equaling out to be the real deciders, and I honestly don't think that pure constitutionality is the only interest, or even the main interest sometimes, that they have at heart, but it's worked well enough for us so far, so I don't see the point in getting rid of them now.
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    uh that is so small as to be stupid. Do you want registration? given less than 3% of criminals get their guns from private sales, its pretty much a waste of resources
    **Thirty Minutes Later**
    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    you are confused. I never denied that many criminals get guns in private sales.

  9. #9
    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 tessaesque View Post
    But who creates the committee? Seems to me that the process is open to a great deal of activism in the proposed state, regardless of how many extraneous steps we put into place.
    I don't think it would open us up to any more activism than having a single individual from a single party appoint judges to the Supreme Court does. As far as creating the multi-partisan committee, the party leaders would be in charge of that. There would be a predetermined set of requirements that would determine the balance of membership required for the group and each party leader would determine who from their party would be on that committee.

    The current system isn't perfect, but you essentially eliminate one of the constitutional checks on power and further empower congress by instituting congressional-only review of constitutionality.
    Instituting such a review is not an inherently detrimental thing so long as their are checks within Congress to ensure fairness. However, if having such a legislator centered review process is unacceptable, then process #3 (having laws review by a body judges before being put on the floor) or a combination of all three would be the preferable solution among the ones I listed. Furthermore, the judges on that 'committee' of sorts would be appointed by a super majority vote in Congress rather than a single individual from one party which would decrease the potential for biases under the current appointment system.

    Maybe the system of selecting SCOTUS appointees needs revision, instead. Perhaps that would better address the issue without further empowering the other two branches of government beyond an acceptable and fairly representative level.
    As I sort of said before, removing the Supreme Court as a "check" is not an inherently bad thing.

  10. #10
    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 tecoyah View Post
    Wait....you say the SCOTUS takes too long, yet think our congress will be faster?

    You seriously gotta be joking.
    Do you have an argument? I don't see one.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... 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
  •