• 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!

Can a supreme court ruling be unconstitutional?

Poll

  • Total voters
    54
Southern Man said:
So what? Lots of folks have written lots of things about the Constitution, most of it as inconsequential as your hero, Paine.
Click to expand...

It's ovious that you know little about Paine. His "Crisis" pamphlet is credited with boosting the morale of the American revolution army and has been acknowledged even by George Washington for it.
 
Perhaps if a supreme court justice accepted a bribe, especially from a foreign leader, and was caught it could be considered unconstitutional. Maybe, just saying.
 
Perhaps if a supreme court justice accepted a bribe, especially from a foreign leader for ahis opinion , and was caught it could be considered unconstitutional. Maybe, just saying.
 
Groucho said:
Technically, no. Who decides whether an opinion is unconstitutional? The Supreme Court. It's a catch 22.

In my opinion, have they ever made decisions that run counter to the Constitution? Of course (including the one today about Miranda).

in the long run though someone has to be the "decider" at the top, and it's them.
Click to expand...

I disagree that the decision on Miranda today is unconstitutional.
 
Tucker Case said:
Definitely.

One example: If a ruling occurs before an amendment is passed, and the amendment conflicts with the previous ruling, that ruling is rendered unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You know, I voted no, but I hadn't considered this point. However, barring this occurence, I don't think a supreme court decision can be unconstitutional. Even if it's reversed later, it just means that they're changed what is 'constitutional'. The previous ruling was still constitutional until it was changed.
 
megaprogman said:
If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

If their rullings constidict the constititon then yes it can be unconstitutional.
 
jamesrage said:
If their rullings constidict the constititon then yes it can be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

If they define the legal interpetation of the constitution, is it possible for them to contradict it?
 
megaprogman said:
If they define the legal interpetation of the constitution, is it possible for them to contradict it?
Click to expand...

I do not buy into interpretation nonsense. The constitution should either be read and teken litterally or not at all. At most you should pick up a dictionary if you are unaware what a word means.
 
jamesrage said:
I do not buy into interpretation nonsense. The constitution should either be read and teken litterally or not at all. At most you should pick up a dictionary if you are unaware what a word means.
Click to expand...

Wow, how simple! Why didn't someone think of that before? We don't need a Supreme Court at all! After all, there can never be any debate about what the Constitution means! Why, we didn't even need this thread! Or all those law books!

Thanks Jamesrage, you've made all of our lives so much easier now that we know that no one ever can have any debates about the Constitution's meaning!
 
jamesrage said:
I do not buy into interpretation nonsense. The constitution should either be read and teken litterally or not at all. At most you should pick up a dictionary if you are unaware what a word means.
Click to expand...

Words often have multiple meanings, so context is important.

Take the word "invasion". It's taken out of context all the time. It's smack dab in the middle of a bunch of military terms, so one must assume that it's pretty obviously referring to a military invasion, but there are still some people who think it refers to farm hands and landscapers. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
If the supreme court decides on what is constitutional and what isn't in their rulings. Can their rulings be unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

The Supreme court has already most non-protestant and too leftie judges from NYC and New Jersey. It is Joke if people like Elena Kagan without any experience can be nominated as judges.The court is being grown to one filial of Democratic party and act only in those interests. 90 % of U.S. are not represented there.
 
Alfons said:
The Supreme court has already most non-protestant and too leftie judges from NYC and New Jersey. It is Joke if people like Elena Kagan without any experience can be nominated as judges.The court is being grown to one filial of Democratic party and act only in those interests. 90 % of U.S. are not represented there.
Click to expand...

I guess you don't research your opinions much, ehh?

Obama Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan has been criticized by some Republican senators for lacking judicial experience. But Justice Antonin Scalia, the High Court’s most outspoken conservative, said Wednesday that he likes that the former Harvard Law School dean and Solicitor General is not currently a judge.

“When I first came to the Supreme Court, three of my colleagues had never been a federal judge,” said Scalia who joined the Court in 1986 after being nominated by President Reagan. “William Rehnquist came to the Bench from the Office of Legal Counsel. Byron White was Deputy Attorney General. And Lewis Powell who was a private lawyer in Richmond and had been president of the American Bar Association.”

“Currently, there is nobody on the Court who has not served as a judge --indeed, as a federal judge -- all nine of us,” he continued. “. . . I am happy to see that this latest nominee is not a federal judge – and not a judge at all.”

Scalia made his remarks about Kagan while delivering the Second Annual Judge Thomas A. Flannery Lecture.

Flannery, who passed away in 2007, is a 1940 graduate of the Columbus School of Law which is now part of The Catholic University of America. The speech was delivered in the Ceremonial Courtroom at the United States Courthouse in Washington, D.C.
Click to expand...
Justice Scalia Praises Elena Kagan

I'll bet Scalia is one of your heroes, right? So, waddaya think about his opinion of Kagan?

Do you think Chief Judge Rehnquist was not qualified? How do you think he turned out?
 
Last edited:
Southern Man said:
Its not what I like and don't like, but what is and what is clearly not constitutional.
Click to expand...

Unconstitutional according to who?

Oh, if only we had a panel of legal experts who could decide such things! A group of, say, nine such people who would have to be approved by the Senate first!
 
Alfons said:
90 % of U.S. are not represented there.
Click to expand...

And for that, I thank god every day.

OPINION OF THE COURT, by Snookie, J.

Yo the guy in this case is all like "i can so avail myself of interlocutory appeal from an order disfavoring arbitration" and i cant even find my law books to figure this out cause the sitaution spilled my jager in my room and i had to clean it up for like an hour and now im tired. so i dont know, but the tall guy who was arguing wins cause he looked like he likes to party. text me sometime bb.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom