• 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!

4-To-4 Supreme Court Decision - What it means.

Removable Mind said:
Something happened in the Supreme Court that is disturbing as hell to me. The first 4 to 4 decision was made since Scalia's death.

A 4 to 4 decision made by the S.C. means: The ruling sets no nationwide precedent and leaves the lower-court ruling as the final decision in the case.

This could have some profound outcomes and impacts for all concerned based cases ruled on without the 9th Justice. Talk about an opportunity to do some serious Judicial Activism.
Click to expand...
And why are treating this situation as historically unique why?
 
maquiscat said:
And why are treating this situation as historically unique why?
Click to expand...

You probably haven't been involved in the thread to the point that you've read all of the posts, otherwise I would guess you'd not have asked the question you did. So I'll try make this brief as possible.

There are no known rules (none that I can find, and nobody else has produced them) about the S.C. rehearing cases that wound up being victims of a 4 and 4 decisions within a specific time frame...or at all. A case doesn't get to the S.C. because somebody is pissed about a parking ticket given in an unmarked no parking zone. There are cases that have significant social impacts, not just a hand full of people that were hell bent on settling a dispute.

Less than 3 weeks after Scalia's death, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was heard on March 2nd. The upcoming decision (possibly in June) is one of the most, if not the most, significant case since Roe v Wade. As of now, the 5th Circuit Court's ruling has caused most of the abortion facilities in Texas to be closed, they've refined "Undue Burden" and "Medical Standard of Care for Abortion Facilities. Why? Because they have ignored the letter and intent of both Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. The 5th Circuit is made up of mostly men, anti-abortion men, who are known to diss the S.C.'s decisions in a number of cases. In other words, if there was every a high court in the US who is anti-women's Constitutional rights, it's the 5th. It's like the 5th is just a branch of the Vatican.

The above case, like a number of other high profile cases pending, have national consequences that are important to resolve. If this case 4 and 4s...the women in the judicial district that the 5th serves will continue to be victims of "undue burden".
 
Removable Mind said:
You probably haven't been involved in the thread to the point that you've read all of the posts, otherwise I would guess you'd not have asked the question you did. So I'll try make this brief as possible.

There are no known rules (none that I can find, and nobody else has produced them) about the S.C. rehearing cases that wound up being victims of a 4 and 4 decisions within a specific time frame...or at all. A case doesn't get to the S.C. because somebody is pissed about a parking ticket given in an unmarked no parking zone. There are cases that have significant social impacts, not just a hand full of people that were hell bent on settling a dispute.

Less than 3 weeks after Scalia's death, Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt was heard on March 2nd. The upcoming decision (possibly in June) is one of the most, if not the most, significant case since Roe v Wade. As of now, the 5th Circuit Court's ruling has caused most of the abortion facilities in Texas to be closed, they've refined "Undue Burden" and "Medical Standard of Care for Abortion Facilities. Why? Because they have ignored the letter and intent of both Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey. The 5th Circuit is made up of mostly men, anti-abortion men, who are known to diss the S.C.'s decisions in a number of cases. In other words, if there was every a high court in the US who is anti-women's Constitutional rights, it's the 5th. It's like the 5th is just a branch of the Vatican.

The above case, like a number of other high profile cases pending, have national consequences that are important to resolve. If this case 4 and 4s...the women in the judicial district that the 5th serves will continue to be victims of "undue burden".
Click to expand...

Where in the Constitution is the federal government given authority to order or adjudicate what is or is not 'undue burden' in matters within any given state? Is that state imposing that 'undue burden' anywhere else in the country? Does that state have the power to deny anybody their unalienable right to go elsewhere to get what they want? You surely get my drift. . . . Women have no Constitutional right to have anybody provide them with an abortion or for a convenient abortion clinic be provided for them or for abortion to be legal for that matter. They do have an unalienable right to get an abortion if abortion is legal and to avail themselves of the services of a legal abortion clinic if one is available to them. But if the woman has to go someplace else to get her abortion, so be it.

So that case is not of such paramount importance that we must allow the Supreme Court to be corrupted just to get a majority vote.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court has integrity only if it interprets the letter and intent of the existing law when that letter and intent was in dispute.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given authority to order or adjudicate what is or is not 'undue burden' in matters within any given state? Is that state imposing that 'undue burden' anywhere else in the country? Does that state have the power to deny anybody their unalienable right to go elsewhere to get what they want? You surely get my drift. . . . Women have no Constitutional right to have anybody provide them with an abortion or for a convenient abortion clinic be provided for them or for abortion to be legal for that matter. They do have an unalienable right to get an abortion if abortion is legal and to avail themselves of the services of a legal abortion clinic if one is available to them. But if the woman has to go someplace else to get her abortion, so be it.

So that case is not of such paramount importance that we must allow the Supreme Court to be corrupted just to get a majority vote.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court has integrity only if it interprets the letter and intent of the existing law when that letter and intent was in dispute.
Click to expand...

Define existing law.

I know that you clearly understand what case law is. You know where it's derived from. Without case law (precedents in law) we wouldn't need the court system, State or Federal...period. We'd be stuck with only laws that existed at the time the Framers created our form of government rather than how laws are legislated now, in other words we'd be without a way to move forward to future times and legal situations.

What source are you drawing from to form an opinion of what the letter and intent of the Framers regarding how the S.C. and all other lower courts would function?
 
Removable Mind said:
Define existing law.

I know that you clearly understand what case law is. You know where it's derived from. Without case law (precedents in law) we wouldn't need the court system, State or Federal...period. We'd be stuck with only laws that existed at the time the Framers created our form of government rather than how laws are legislated now, in other words we'd be without a way to move forward to future times and legal situations.

What source are you drawing from to form an opinion of what the letter and intent of the Framers regarding how the S.C. and all other lower courts would function?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The Founders intended the United States of America to be a whole new thing leaving the authoritarian governments of Europe behind and embarking on a grand experiment in which the people assigned the government its power and authority instead of the other way around. They certainly did not expect our courts to utilize case law from the corrupt and oppressive court systems left behind. By existing law, I mean what the letter and intent of the law was expected to be at the time it was enacted into law. Not what some future court decided to rewrite or interpret other than as intended.

And I draw my perspective and understanding of these issues from studying the Founding documents and the thought processes of the Founders as well as the great thinkers who helped them form their own perspectives for most of my adult life. So I have a pretty good idea of what they intended the three branches of government to be.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Nonsense. The Founders intended the United States of America to be a whole new thing leaving the authoritarian governments of Europe behind and embarking on a grand experiment in which the people assigned the government its power and authority instead of the other way around. They certainly did not expect our courts to utilize case law from the corrupt and oppressive court systems left behind. By existing law, I mean what the letter and intent of the law was expected to be at the time it was enacted into law. Not what some future court decided to rewrite or interpret other than as intended.

And I draw my perspective and understanding of these issues from studying the Founding documents and the thought processes of the Founders as well as the great thinkers who helped them form their own perspectives for most of my adult life. So I have a pretty good idea of what they intended the three branches of government to be.
Click to expand...

Nonsense? Then perhaps we come from a different America?

Wanna blame someone or something for our systemic problems in our Judicial Branch? When's the last time you've read the Preamble to our Constitution? In my opinion, We the People, have done a piss poor job of carrying out that noble mission. We have enabled a self-will-run-riot government to grow stronger and stronger for decade after decade...and NOW we're upset? We only have ourselves to blame.

Despite the above....

Our nation has virtually no resemblance to what it did prior and up to the creation of our Constitution. And since the Constitution's creation, it changed, Amendments were added. Yes, the core principles are a necessity and still exist, but didn't become suspended in some time continuum the moment the Constitution was ratified by all States. We had to start somewhere. The letter and intent by the Framers, as you've described it, came from strong discord, torn feelings, beliefs, antagonism and opposition regarding the principles to be set forth to grow our nation . During those days everything was in constant flux, including the letter and intent of Constitution. The letter and intent remains to be a source of conflict today. Can you image someone claiming that there's only one interpretation of the bible...especially if it is contradictory to yours? Our Constitution was NOT a perfect and complete instrument. No Constitution will prevent human conflict and nor tell us how to totally resolve all conflicts.

The fundamental design of our Constitution is derived from a host of core principles that were established in Europe, which came from so many sources over the ages that became essential for humanity to evolve into what we call civilized societies. The founders didn't invent the wheel. The Framers studied the Senates of the Roman Empire, The Magna Carta, The English Bill of Rights in 1689, etc, etc, etc.

The reality is that the blueprint for our judicial system wasn't fully developed in the Constitution by the Framers. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits all laws. So many of the laws that existed at the time of the Framers aren't relevant or became outdated. Updating is a necessity, change is constantly required. How much need was there for Internet law at the time? Intellectual Property law was almost in its prenatal stage. Even Corporate law that emerged in the days of the Framers would be so antiquated and unrecognizable today...and basically worthless.

The framers knew that the growth of society and demands on government would have to be forever changing...or cease to exist.

Our nation's judicial system would have come undone long ago had our Court systems and laws remained static. They would implode without the ability to grow and change with society.

In other words, while the core elements of the Founding Blueprint for our government's role and the rights of the citizens has, for the most part, remained enduring, but when applied to the law, the outcomes are near inexhaustible, based on nothing more than human conflict that didn't exist at the time of the Framers. These folks didn't have cognitive rigidity. They knew that being enduring wasn't enough. The Constitution had to be a source of creation in and of itself. This is called "case law", legal precedents that are essential to our system of law and justice.
 
Last edited:
Removable Mind said:
Think about it...it's not rocket science.
Click to expand...

Basically, it means the republican activist robed clown squad on the SCOTUS has effectively been neutered. The right can no longer protect their special interests. It means the SCOTUS is effectively neutralized unless there is consensus and agreement among the justices. This would be a great time for all of the people Wal-Mart has abused to take their concerns to court. When the right-wing scum squad try to appeal to the SCOTUS the decision of the lower courts, which makes Wal-Mart pay long, deep, and continuously, will not be overturned by right-wing business stooges like Alito and Thomas.

Clarence Thomas is a disgraceful human being and should NEVER have been confirmed but that is an argument for another day.
 
TheIceman said:
Basically, it means the republican activist robed clown squad on the SCOTUS has effectively been neutered. The right can no longer protect their special interests. It means the SCOTUS is effectively neutralized unless there is consensus and agreement among the justices. This would be a great time for all of the people Wal-Mart has abused to take their concerns to court. When the right-wing scum squad try to appeal to the SCOTUS the decision of the lower courts, which makes Wal-Mart pay long, deep, and continuously, will not be overturned by right-wing business stooges like Alito and Thomas.

Clarence Thomas is a disgraceful human being and should NEVER have been confirmed but that is an argument for another day.
Click to expand...

How can we get around all of the obvious flaws that's emerged since its inception? Justices are all human. They've all had their philosophical biases the second they were appointed. How can the selection of Justices be more equitable? Is there such a thing as a politically neutral person?
 
Removable Mind said:
How can we get around all of the obvious flaws that's emerged since its inception? Justices are all human. They've all had their philosophical biases the second they were appointed. How can the selection of Justices be more equitable? Is there such a thing as a politically neutral person?
Click to expand...

A fair point and I agree that it's hard to be neutral. However, the right-wing justices have long abused their superior numbers to protect big business and force their ideology on the rest of the country. The reason the right-wing nitwit squad (led by McConnell) has an issue with having to live with a left-leaning court. The right cannot bear the idea of tasting their own medicine.

The simple truth is that the first step in this process is to eliminate Citizens United and then eliminate outside donation to political campaigns. When the money is taken out of the process much of the corruptive influence will go with it. Those who supported Citizens United need to be removed from office. They are corrupt and they are a part of the problem.

The next phase is to make it a federal offense for billionaires and multi-millionaires to have ANY involvement with politicians. The Koch brothers, George Soros, Sheldon Alderson, and the rest of the wealthy need to be kept as far from politics as possible. They are force of corruption and should face jail time and extreme civil forfeitures as punishment for their meddling in US politics.

This is merely the beginning. Where to go from here ... I have no idea.
 
Removable Mind said:
Nonsense? Then perhaps we come from a different America?

Wanna blame someone or something for our systemic problems in our Judicial Branch? When's the last time you've read the Preamble to our Constitution? In my opinion, We the People, have done a piss poor job of carrying out that noble mission. We have enabled a self-will-run-riot government to grow stronger and stronger for decade after decade...and NOW we're upset? We only have ourselves to blame.

Despite the above....

Our nation has virtually no resemblance to what it did prior and up to the creation of our Constitution. And since the Constitution's creation, it changed, Amendments were added. Yes, the core principles are a necessity and still exist, but didn't become suspended in some time continuum the moment the Constitution was ratified by all States. We had to start somewhere. The letter and intent by the Framers, as you've described it, came from strong discord, torn feelings, beliefs, antagonism and opposition regarding the principles to be set forth to grow our nation . During those days everything was in constant flux, including the letter and intent of Constitution. The letter and intent remains to be a source of conflict today. Can you image someone claiming that there's only one interpretation of the bible...especially if it is contradictory to yours? Our Constitution was NOT a perfect and complete instrument. No Constitution will prevent human conflict and nor tell us how to totally resolve all conflicts.

The fundamental design of our Constitution is derived from a host of core principles that were established in Europe, which came from so many sources over the ages that became essential for humanity to evolve into what we call civilized societies. The founders didn't invent the wheel. The Framers studied the Senates of the Roman Empire, The Magna Carta, The English Bill of Rights in 1689, etc, etc, etc.

The reality is that the blueprint for our judicial system wasn't fully developed in the Constitution by the Framers. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits all laws. So many of the laws that existed at the time of the Framers aren't relevant or became outdated. Updating is a necessity, change is constantly required. How much need was there for Internet law at the time? Intellectual Property law was almost in its prenatal stage. Even Corporate law that emerged in the days of the Framers would be so antiquated and unrecognizable today...and basically worthless.

The framers knew that the growth of society and demands on government would have to be forever changing...or cease to exist.

Our nation's judicial system would have come undone long ago had our Court systems and laws remained static. They would implode without the ability to grow and change with society.

In other words, while the core elements of the Founding Blueprint for our government's role and the rights of the citizens has, for the most part, remained enduring, but when applied to the law, the outcomes are near inexhaustible, based on nothing more than human conflict that didn't exist at the time of the Framers. These folks didn't have cognitive rigidity. They knew that being enduring wasn't enough. The Constitution had to be a source of creation in and of itself. This is called "case law", legal precedents that are essential to our system of law and justice.
Click to expand...

It makes no sense to me, and I am sure it made no sense to the Founders, to do things the way it was done in the oppressive regimes they risked everything they had and fought a bloody war to escape from. I am quite sure the Founders had no intention of the courts using criteria used by the English courts to determine what case law here would look like. That was a later invention as unscrupulous courts struggled to find some basis to sidestep the letter and intent of the Constitution.

You can believe that or not. But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to change my mind about that.
 
TheIceman said:
A fair point and I agree that it's hard to be neutral. However, the right-wing justices have long abused their superior numbers to protect big business and force their ideology on the rest of the country. The reason the right-wing nitwit squad (led by McConnell) has an issue with having to live with a left-leaning court. The right cannot bear the idea of tasting their own medicine.

The simple truth is that the first step in this process is to eliminate Citizens United and then eliminate outside donation to political campaigns. When the money is taken out of the process much of the corruptive influence will go with it. Those who supported Citizens United need to be removed from office. They are corrupt and they are a part of the problem.

The next phase is to make it a federal offense for billionaires and multi-millionaires to have ANY involvement with politicians. The Koch brothers, George Soros, Sheldon Alderson, and the rest of the wealthy need to be kept as far from politics as possible. They are force of corruption and should face jail time and extreme civil forfeitures as punishment for their meddling in US politics.

This is merely the beginning. Where to go from here ... I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Perhaps a mandatory 7-2 (super majority) vote might help? :shrug:
 
Removable Mind said:
Perhaps a mandatory 7-2 (super majority) vote might help? :shrug:
Click to expand...

I happen to believe that an equal showing on each side would prevent many issues. It will prevent the right from allowing business to rape the American public and it will stop the left from overtuning the 2nd Amendment.

While the sides are equal, both parties are effectively neutralized.
 
TheIceman said:
I happen to believe that an equal showing on each side would prevent many issues. It will prevent the right from allowing business to rape the American public and it will stop the left from overtuning the 2nd Amendment.

While the sides are equal, both parties are effectively neutralized.
Click to expand...

So if both sides have a party allegiances then...?? Who'll be willing to lose face for break a tie?
 
AlbqOwl said:
It makes no sense to me, and I am sure it made no sense to the Founders, to do things the way it was done in the oppressive regimes they risked everything they had and fought a bloody war to escape from. I am quite sure the Founders had no intention of the courts using criteria used by the English courts to determine what case law here would look like. That was a later invention as unscrupulous courts struggled to find some basis to sidestep the letter and intent of the Constitution.

You can believe that or not. But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to change my mind about that.
Click to expand...

AO, I'm not trying to change your mind about anything. Just pointing out some fundamental facts.

I'm not saying that the Framers imitated the English court system. Clearly they didn't.

What I am saying is that the Framers used a number of historical documents and records to help them formulate our system of government, our Bill of Rights. Check out the link below and read over the English Bill of Rights 1689 below, you'll see that our Framers didn't need to reinvent the wheel. Read the Magna Cartas, one of the most profound demands for rights, which King John signed in 1215.

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The Magna Carta 1215

And yes, we have some serious problems within all branches of our government. But the letter and intent has been under dispute for over 200 years. And it may not ever be settled.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It makes no sense to me, and I am sure it made no sense to the Founders, to do things the way it was done in the oppressive regimes they risked everything they had and fought a bloody war to escape from. I am quite sure the Founders had no intention of the courts using criteria used by the English courts to determine what case law here would look like. That was a later invention as unscrupulous courts struggled to find some basis to sidestep the letter and intent of the Constitution.

You can believe that or not. But I'm pretty sure you won't be able to change my mind about that.
Click to expand...

AO, I'm not trying to change your mind about anything. Just pointing out some fundamental facts.

I'm not saying that the Framers imitated the English court system. Clearly they didn't.

What I am saying is that the Framers used a number of historical documents and records to help them formulate our system of government, our Bill of Rights. Check out the link below and read over the English Bill of Rights 1689 below, you'll see that our Framers didn't need to reinvent the wheel. Read the Magna Cartas, one of the most profound demands for rights, which King John signed in 1215.

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The Magna Carta 1215

And yes, we have some serious problems within all branches of our government. But the letter and intent has been under dispute for over 200 years. And it may not ever be settled.
 
Removable Mind said:
AO, I'm not trying to change your mind about anything. Just pointing out some fundamental facts.

I'm not saying that the Framers imitated the English court system. Clearly they didn't.

What I am saying is that the Framers used a number of historical documents and records to help them formulate our system of government, our Bill of Rights. Check out the link below and read over the English Bill of Rights 1689 below, you'll see that our Framers didn't need to reinvent the wheel. Read the Magna Cartas, one of the most profound demands for rights, which King John signed in 1215.

Avalon Project - English Bill of Rights 1689

The Magna Carta 1215

And yes, we have some serious problems within all branches of our government. But the letter and intent has been under dispute for over 200 years. And it may not ever be settled.
Click to expand...

We all draw what is useful from our existing experience when we are formulating a new concept or process. So of course the Founding Fathers would have done that. But they were absolutely creating a new thing, something that had never been done in the known history of the world. Their motive was a government subject to the will of the people and without authority to impose its will on the people beyond a few necessary factors. They certainly would not have consented for the courts to usurp that than they would have consented to a monarch or a totalitarian government that would presume authority to assign the rights the people would have.
 
TheIceman said:
The next phase is to make it a federal offense for billionaires and multi-millionaires to have ANY involvement with politicians. The Koch brothers, George Soros, Sheldon Alderson, and the rest of the wealthy need to be kept as far from politics as possible. They are force of corruption and should face jail time and extreme civil forfeitures as punishment for their meddling in US politics.
Click to expand...
You understand that this would also include the Clintons and really many of today's politicians, not to mention Jackson, Sharpton and Moore, yes? They are as much a force of corruption and are multi-millionaires if not billionaires.
 
maquiscat said:
You understand that this would also include the Clintons and really many of today's politicians, not to mention Jackson, Sharpton and Moore, yes? They are as much a force of corruption and are multi-millionaires if not billionaires.
Click to expand...

Whatever it takes to remove the money from politics.
 
AlbqOwl said:
We all draw what is useful from our existing experience when we are formulating a new concept or process. So of course the Founding Fathers would have done that. But they were absolutely creating a new thing, something that had never been done in the known history of the world. Their motive was a government subject to the will of the people and without authority to impose its will on the people beyond a few necessary factors. They certainly would not have consented for the courts to usurp that than they would have consented to a monarch or a totalitarian government that would presume authority to assign the rights the people would have.
Click to expand...

just a note to you, natural rights were known by the Romans.
 
Master PO said:
just a note to you, natural rights were known by the Romans.
Click to expand...

Certainly. The concept of Natural rights date back at least to Plato and Aristotle and probably before that. But the U.S. Constitution is the first time in the history of the world that a nation was formed on the basis of natural rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom