View Poll Results: Is the Supreme Court being the Ultimate Arbiter of Constituionality a Problem?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • The Supreme Court is not the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality

    6 17.65%
  • The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are no problems with that

    5 14.71%
  • The supreme court is the ultimate arbiter and there are problems but it is the best system possible

    14 41.18%
  • the SCOTUS is the ultimate arbiter its a problem, but there are ways to improve (explain)

    8 23.53%
  • Other/Don't Know

    1 2.94%
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 80

Thread: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

  1. #51
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Anagram's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    St. Louis MO
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    6,198

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    I have read in several books that during the Washington Presidency, he would only veto a piece of legislation if he thought it to be unconstitutional. So during our first presidency, it seems Washington was the one to decide what was and wasn’t constitutional. Congress of course could override his veto.

    It seems the framers left the question of who decides what is and isn’t constitutional open or at least ambiguous. Then Chief Justice Marshall gave us judicial review. Probably with a nation and government the size of ours today, there probably isn’t any other way than to let the SCOTUS decide what is and isn’t constitutional. But the problem is so many justices on the SCOTUS rule or decide on their political views and agenda and not on the original intent of the framers. You are correct, a retirement here, a death there and many of the laws we now consider constitutional may not have been that at all.

    But I can’t see each state deciding what is or isn’t constitutional, I also do not think I would feel comfortable with congress or the president making that decision either. So by the process of elimination, we end up with the SCOTUS. Personally, I wish they would go by original intent instead of twisting words around in the constitution to suit their own political philosophy. But I really see no other way.
    It seems pretty ambiguous to me on whether judicial review was intended, although I lean towards yes. Hamilton arguing for it and Yates arguing against it both seemed to believe it was in the new constitution.

    I basically believe the same way that for all their flaws, the SCOTUS is probably our best option.
    There should be Instant Runoff Voting

  2. #52
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,950
    Blog Entries
    25

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    It seems pretty ambiguous to me on whether judicial review was intended, although I lean towards yes. Hamilton arguing for it and Yates arguing against it both seemed to believe it was in the new constitution.

    I basically believe the same way that for all their flaws, the SCOTUS is probably our best option.
    Call it the lesser of all evils.
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Anagram View Post
    I'm concerned that would lead to even more incentive to pack the court with partisans rather than good justices.
    Yet that's exactly what happens, both parties try to pack the court with their own partisan appointees as they can and the justices in the Supreme Court, instead of ruling based on the Constitution, rule based on their own personal biases. The whole system has gone to hell.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #54
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Do you realize that multiple papers have been written analyzing the phrase "bear arms" in historical context and that the meaning might not be as clear cut as you think?
    Certainly there have been, from biased perspectives on both sides. Nobody is willing to just take the words in the Constitution as they were written, everyone has to cook the terminology so it appears to say what they want it to say.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  5. #55
    versus the world
    Surtr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The greatest planet in the world.
    Last Seen
    06-10-14 @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    7,017

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    The Supreme Court is comprised of fallible human beings who are just as subject to political bias as any other member of the government body. While they act as the "ultimate arbiter", they are only human.
    I love the NSA. It's like having a secret fan-base you will never see, but they're there, watching everything you write and it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside knowing that I may be some person's only form of unconstitutional entertainment one night.

  6. #56
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Yet that's exactly what happens, both parties try to pack the court with their own partisan appointees as they can and the justices in the Supreme Court, instead of ruling based on the Constitution, rule based on their own personal biases. The whole system has gone to hell.
    The reason it still works better than you'd think is because although appointed by a President, they aren't accountable to him once confirmed. I'm sure the President was gnashing his teeth when two liberal justices ruled that the states couldn't be forced to accept the Medicaid expansion.

    He's also gotten nailed with a few 9-0 decisions against actions of his administration. I'd be pretty embarrassed, actually, if I was president and the entire Supreme Court thought I was acting illegally.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    The reason it still works better than you'd think is because although appointed by a President, they aren't accountable to him once confirmed. I'm sure the President was gnashing his teeth when two liberal justices ruled that the states couldn't be forced to accept the Medicaid expansion.

    He's also gotten nailed with a few 9-0 decisions against actions of his administration. I'd be pretty embarrassed, actually, if I was president and the entire Supreme Court thought I was acting illegally.
    But he's still loading the court with people he thinks will agree with his position. Granted, it hasn't worked out that way all the time in the past, but most of the time, the people appointed by liberal presidents act liberally and the people appointed by neo-cons (recently) act neo-con. I really don't want anyone to act liberal or neo-con, I want them to do the job that they're appointed to do, which is entirely non-partisan.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #58
    Professor
    Shadow Serious's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Last Seen
    07-18-14 @ 07:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Maybe we need a council of States to determine what is Constitutional. If 75% agree if something is Constitutional then it is. If 75% of States agree if it is not Constitutional than it isn't. If it is neither maybe a Constitutional Convention would have to be called or Congress requested to pass an amendment to the Constitution.
    An Enlightened Master is ideal only if your goal is to become a Benighted Slave. -- Robert Anton Wilson

  9. #59
    Student francois60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Coral Springs, FL
    Last Seen
    02-12-15 @ 03:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    251

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    But he's still loading the court with people he thinks will agree with his position. Granted, it hasn't worked out that way all the time in the past, but most of the time, the people appointed by liberal presidents act liberally and the people appointed by neo-cons (recently) act neo-con. I really don't want anyone to act liberal or neo-con, I want them to do the job that they're appointed to do, which is entirely non-partisan.
    Definitely. The last justice to act in a way opposite from the President who appointed him intended was David Souter. I was just pointing out that despite this, the system still works better than the elected branches deciding what is constitutional.

  10. #60
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Supreme Court as the Ultimate Arbiter?

    Quote Originally Posted by francois60 View Post
    Definitely. The last justice to act in a way opposite from the President who appointed him intended was David Souter. I was just pointing out that despite this, the system still works better than the elected branches deciding what is constitutional.
    Which doesn't change the fact that it still doesn't work as intended and can be improved.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 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
  •