• 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!

Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

Do We Still Need the SCOTUS?

  • No...it serves no real purpose.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Yes..we must have something to protect our Constitution.

    Votes: 24 72.7%
  • We only need it when they agree with my guys.

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • It's not that simple...I'll explain

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Total voters
    33

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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?
 
......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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Do We Still Need the SCOTUS to protect the constitution?



Is probably a better question.


We already have lobbyists and politicians to shred it.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.....
 
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.
 
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.

Yet calling what income is spent on (especially what it is NOT spent on) a constituional basis for allowing the 16th amnedment to collect FINES or PENALTIES is not constitutional, no matter what chief justice Roberts, or any other judge says. PPACA never mentioned its relationship to income taxation, OTHER than to say that fines/penaties would be collected by IRS for employers NOT offering medical care insurance and employees NOT purchasing it OR being covered under another's policy. That is WAY beyond anything even remotely mentioned in the constitution or its many amendments.
 
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.

Quite a leap in logic there.

Off the cliff you go.

Ahem there were 5 dissenters for a host of reasons.

And I called for them to actually do their jobs, not be destroyed.

This has nothing to do with like or not like. They are following the constitution or they are not.

In this case with 238 years of examples to pull from One guy has to pull it from under his robe to settle the score.

Even the people that agreed with him do not agree on how he did it. Read the analysis.

The poll seems pretty consistent.
 
just cause' they make decisions that you don't like, doesn't mean they aren't doing their job with honesty & integrity.

If these judges actually did their job impartially then why are a lot of decisions based on political beliefs? Why do parties fight tooth and nail to get their guy or gal to be supreme court judge while the opposing party fights tooth and nail to keep the president's guy form getting nominated?


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

Calling for blatant infringements on constitutional rights that say shall not infringe is un-American but you seem to have no problem advocating for those infringements.
 
If we do away with SCOTUS we may as well just do away with Republicanism and take up a parliamentary government instead.
 
If these judges actually did their job impartially then why are a lot of decisions based on political beliefs?....

i see no evidence that a lot of decisions are based on political beliefs.

just an interpretation of the Constitution that is held by many folks of one side of our political spectrum.
 
Back
Top Bottom