Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 61

Thread: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

  1. #31
    Auslander
    Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,653

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    That is a well thought out post, but I would like to ask you what you think the "Judicial Power" is? What were the founders talking about when they mention "the Judicial power" in Section 1 of Article III?

    Is it meant to be a rubber stamp for the other 2 branches? Is it to sit by passively and accept without comment the actions of domestic enemies of the USC?
    The initial purpose of the supreme court was not to deny the power of the other 2 branches if that answers your question. The court was the final appellate court and otherwise had supremacy over issues between states, the federal government and foreign governments; it was never intended to become the arbiter of morality, legality, etc. The salve, per Jefferson, was the people themselves.
    #BDS

    No forgiveness here remains.

  2. #32
    Classical Liberal Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,314
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Obscurity View Post
    Yes, but you can't impeach a justice for "faithfully interpreting the constitution." The constitution can be amended, which is the remedy. Right now, no one amends the constitution, and the courts have become the supreme arbiter of our way of life, which was never intended to be so.
    Why would anyone WANT to impeach a Justice for "faithfully" doing their job? Isn't that what we seek from those appointed, hired, etc. who work for us in any endeavor; to "faithfully" do their jobs?

    Quote Originally Posted by Obscurity View Post
    ...The constitution can be amended, which is the remedy. Right now, no one amends the constitution, and the courts have become the supreme arbiter of our way of life, which was never intended to be so.
    Again, not entirely correct.

    Court's do exist to arbitrate the law.

    But if you don't like how that arbitration went, then I told you there are methods to address it. They include amending current law, passing new law, or if the problem is an "unfaithful" Judge? Impeach them.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 10-14-19 at 10:59 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

  3. #33
    Auslander
    Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,653

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by gdgyva View Post
    dont know the exact hypothetical, but maybe those 9 judges make that ruling because they think the legislature is overstepping their bounds

    maybe it needs to be a constitional amendent and not a law?

    just because you dont like rulings those judges make, doesnt mean they arent the right rulings
    And just because you do like the rulings justices make does not mean they aren't the wrong rulings. Entirely too much emphasis is placed on 9 unelected officials and their power over every day life is entirely too great.

    And yes, plenty -should- be an amendment; however, we're at an impasse. The people overwhelmingly support some issues, however, no amendments are really proposed or discussed; politicians don't want to do their job, so they allow the court to continue acting as all three branches; determining who can spend what, who can legislate what, and who can do what.
    #BDS

    No forgiveness here remains.

  4. #34
    Sage
    JasperL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,816

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by ocean515 View Post
    No it isn't.

    It's governing the people by judicial fiat.

    Judge's Fiat Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
    My point was obvious - it's never judicial activism when someone agrees with the court's ruling. Just last week a judge decided that it's illegal for the President to ignore a specific and explicit prohibition on spending passed by Congress. For right wingers, saying, "The President must comply with the law as passed by Congress and signed by POTUS" is a form of judicial activism by far left librul activist communist judges. Of course that's nonsense IMO.

    As I see it it was WAS judicial activism when we allowed Justice Roberts to effectively decide whether or not the ACA was legal, and of course it was also judicial activism when the USSC decided that Congress cannot in fact set the eligibility rules for a federal program, in that case Medicaid, but I'll bet you thought Roberts was an activist judge when he ruled in favor of the ACA and that the USSC was not being activist when they killed the Medicaid expansion rules. If not you, many did. Now the ACA has been in place for a decade, and there's a legitimate chance that what the GOP with control of the house and senate and WH could never do will be done by "judicial fiat" by activist judges on the Supreme Court, and strike down that entire law.

    The principle which is the topic of the OP is when in the hell did the USSC get the authority to rule on those matters at all. Why is it Justice Roberts' job to decide how far the Congress can go in determining the rules for a federally funded program? We see from the partisan splits on those big cases that they're effectively a third branch of the legislature, ruling based on their political biases rather than some objective standard in the law - there's the Senate, the House and the Supreme Court and that last branch has a job for life and isn't subject to recall by the voters and doesn't answer to voters or anyone else. And we all accept it as normal that the USSC acts as this super legislature, which is why who gets to appoint them matters so much.

  5. #35
    Auslander
    Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,653

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Why would anyone WANT to impeach a Justice for "faithfully" doing their job? Isn't that what we seek in this who work for us in any endeavor, to "faithfully" do their jobs?
    That's my point. They can "faithfully" interpret the constitution against 100% of the will of the entire republic and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Hypothetical, but possible reality. The changes in social norms essentially means the court can continue to issue edicts on high based on partisan spin; the court is absolutely political, and we all know it. You can't impeach them and remove them for "not doing the will of the people," despite the fact that in my hypothetical 100% of people agree and want something done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Once again, Court's arbitrate the law.

    If you don't like how that arbitration went, then I told you there are methods to address it. They include amending current law, passing new law, or if the problem is an "unfaithful" Judge? Impeach them.
    And laws don't matter, when an activist court can simply strike them down. You're missing the point. "Faithfulness" is all dependent upon political perspective, not on any true interpretation of the constitution. Case in point, general welfare; one side thinks it means one thing, the other disagrees; we have judges on both sides of that equation which can rule despotically depending on who is telling them or told them how to interpret what.

    The activist court the founders feared has been active for the past 216 years.
    #BDS

    No forgiveness here remains.

  6. #36
    Sage


    Thoreau72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    25,968

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Obscurity View Post
    The initial purpose of the supreme court was not to deny the power of the other 2 branches if that answers your question. The court was the final appellate court and otherwise had supremacy over issues between states, the federal government and foreign governments; it was never intended to become the arbiter of morality, legality, etc. The salve, per Jefferson, was the people themselves.
    Yes, how romantic Jefferson was. A hopeless romantic like Madison? He saw the unelected judiciary as being "the last bulwark against tyranny". That dream didn't quite materialize, with decisions such as Kelo, Sparf and Citizens United.

    Still, I wonder how those men defined "the judicial power?" What was the common understanding of the term I wonder?

    It seems to me that if those in black are meant to uphold their oath to defend the document, some sort of activity would be required. History is full of examples of the reality that the domestic enemies of the document are far more virulent than any foreign enemy. To me, it seems men unaware of morality or its considerations would not serve society as well as, hypothetically, men of conscience. I would prefer them to any unaware of moral considerations.

  7. #37
    Sage
    gdgyva's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Near Atlanta Georgia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    9,077

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Obscurity View Post
    And just because you do like the rulings justices make does not mean they aren't the wrong rulings. Entirely too much emphasis is placed on 9 unelected officials and their power over every day life is entirely too great.

    And yes, plenty -should- be an amendment; however, we're at an impasse. The people overwhelmingly support some issues, however, no amendments are really proposed or discussed; politicians don't want to do their job, so they allow the court to continue acting as all three branches; determining who can spend what, who can legislate what, and who can do what.
    dont disagree

    not many deal makers in DC any more

    cant let the other side have "any sort of a win"

    the days of Tip O'Neill reaching accross the aisle to make a deal with Reagan and the republicans is gone

    neither was extremely happy with the ending bill....which is how you knew neither side WON

    both had to give a little.....no one wants to do that anymore

    immigration and the wall is the perfect example

    between the dreamers, the wall, and such...both sides wanted things...and yet, neither side could let the other have any sort of a win

    so we get these EO's and run the country with those....and then those get thrown out with the new administrations and everyone gets mad

    DC is broken....and i for one have zero idea on how it can be fixed
    “Most of the shadows of this life are caused by standing in one's own sunshine.”

    Ralph Waldo Emerson

  8. #38
    Sage
    JasperL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:42 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,816

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Adverse View Post
    Hmmm...

    One must ask, what is the purpose of a Court? It is to arbitrate the Law.

    What is the supreme law of the USA? The Constitution.

    What branch of government was set up to arbitrate the law of the land? The Supreme Court.

    This is how Marbury v. Madison was raised, and the idea of Judicial Review came about.

    Congress makes laws, the President enforces laws, and the Judiciary (SCOTUS) arbitrates those laws and actions.

    This works, otherwise we would have no way to seek justice.

    If the people who created the Constitution didn't want it to work this way, don't you think that immediately after Marbury they would have amended the Constitution?
    That's all true and there has to be an ultimate authority on a given subject. Where I see the problem is when the courts very arguably wade into areas clearly more appropriate for the legislature to decide, and where they then impose what are their own biases on the rest of us with no accountability. As I said above, the various decisions regarding the ACA are clear examples of overreach IMO. The ACA passed a decade ago, and the Congress can and should be the body to decide whether it's good law and should stand or is bad law and repealed. Now that the legislature has failed for a decade to repeal it, there's a chance the Supreme Court will do that instead. Why do we accept that?

  9. #39
    Auslander
    Obscurity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2018
    Location
    PA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    9,653

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Thoreau72 View Post
    Yes, how romantic Jefferson was. A hopeless romantic like Madison? He saw the unelected judiciary as being "the last bulwark against tyranny". That dream didn't quite materialize, with decisions such as Kelo, Sparf and Citizens United.

    Still, I wonder how those men defined "the judicial power?" What was the common understanding of the term I wonder?

    It seems to me that if those in black are meant to uphold their oath to defend the document, some sort of activity would be required. History is full of examples of the reality that the domestic enemies of the document are far more virulent than any foreign enemy. To me, it seems men unaware of morality or its considerations would not serve society as well as, hypothetically, men of conscience. I would prefer them to any unaware of moral considerations.
    Those in black are consistent in their pro-corporate rulings that have lead to sucha gulf between the rich and the not rich as to be laughable. One of the primary issues is money as free speech, a conundrum that is itself unconstitutional on its face; giving the rich more "speech" than anyone else is absolutely ridiculous and absurd.

    I'm not sure what the founders meant by "judicial power" but the federalist papers go to great lengths to discuss the intent of the SCOTUS and how it should function. If it were a bulwark against tyranny it would not be acting as it does; then again, as Americans, we have objectively failed to live up to our founders expectations, and that, I suppose, is the actual biggest threat we face; that we have failed this experiment, and are not learning any lessons from that failure.
    #BDS

    No forgiveness here remains.

  10. #40
    Classical Liberal Sage
    Captain Adverse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Mid-West USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    12,314
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

    Quote Originally Posted by Obscurity View Post
    That's my point. They can "faithfully" interpret the constitution against 100% of the will of the entire republic and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it. Hypothetical, but possible reality. The changes in social norms essentially means the court can continue to issue edicts on high based on partisan spin; the court is absolutely political, and we all know it. You can't impeach them and remove them for "not doing the will of the people," despite the fact that in my hypothetical 100% of people agree and want something done.

    And laws don't matter, when an activist court can simply strike them down. You're missing the point. "Faithfulness" is all dependent upon political perspective, not on any true interpretation of the constitution. Case in point, general welfare; one side thinks it means one thing, the other disagrees; we have judges on both sides of that equation which can rule despotically depending on who is telling them or told them how to interpret what.

    The activist court the founders feared has been active for the past 216 years.
    No. YOU are missing the point.

    Just because a "majority of the population" wants something does not automatically make what they want a good thing. There has to be a way to protect the minority view, and that is where judicial arbitration often comes in.

    Meanwhile, it is true that a single judge can make a ruling at the first level when the case is brought before a Court. But that ruling can be appealed, and as it goes up the appeal chain more and more Judges are called in to conduct a review and rule on it.

    This is true at both State and Federal levels. In each case a ruling is made by the majority on the panel right up to the SCOTUS where a final ruling is reached.

    The system WORKS because more often than not it is fair and equitable. In those instances where it appears not to be?

    Well you keep saying that there is nothing that can be done. However, I have pointed out that you are wrong. Laws can be amended or created to address such situations.

    In the event it is a Judge who is "faulty," then they can be removed from office and replaced.

    What exactly would you prefer? Endless reviews? That every decision then go to Congress, or directly to the whole of the People to vote on? But THAT is where the real politicking is going to happen. In the kangaroo court of public opinion where decisions are easily swayed and seldom fair despite being "popular."

    IMO the system works exactly as it should.
    Last edited by Captain Adverse; 10-14-19 at 11:51 AM.
    If I stop responding it doesn't mean I've conceded the point or agree with you. It only means I've made my point and I don't mind you having the last word. Please wait a few minutes before "quoting" me. I often correct errors for a minute or two after I post before the final product is ready.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •