• 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!

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

Tell me, who has oversight of the scotus? Which court/authority can tell the scotus they're wrong? With lifetime appointments, another contoversial topic, who gets to say to them their interpretation is incorrect?

Congress has the power to impeach a Justice, and there are methods to amend the laws to address judicial rulings. Even the Constitution can be amended, as it has 27 times already.
 
....Judicial review. The SCOTUS was -never- meant to be the absurd power house that it is, usurping the power of both the legislative and executive branches of government. As an acolyte of Jefferson, I disagree entirely with the notion of an activist court, and even oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, along with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling that enabled the court to become the sole arbiter of power this country has, by voting for itself to have such extreme power.

Dredd Scott, Roe, Citizens United, hell, even Brown v. Board of Edu, Buckley v. Valeo, etc.

All of these cases and arbitrary rulings were -unnecessary- because the social changes in the nation had already decided the fate of these issues. No one thought money is free speech; this means some folks have more speech than others. No one wanted to continue segregation save southern autocrats - overwhelmingly the public did and still does support abortion.

The SCOTUS has usurped the freedom and will of the people. I almost never agree with the right wing, but they are correct about activism among the Justices. The issue with the right is that they have figured out the court has this authority and has used it to rule in favor of corporate power for decades now.

So, change my mind. Nothing can be instituted as law withought these 9 unelected arbiters agreeing it is "constitutional."

This was never how the court was envisioned by our founders.

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?
 
Yeah, well the problem is that if the legislative branch passes a law some people don't like, they are always going to try to see if they can overturn it by challenging it in court. That's why all those cases ended up there. It turns out sometimes it IS unconstitutional.

How else would you propose such situations be handled?

How do you think the founders intended for it to be handled?

For the voters to oust the representatives who deny their will. In the case of states, if Alabama outlaws abortion, don't live there. It's relatively simple.
 
Congress has the power to impeach a Justice, and there are methods to amend the laws to address judicial rulings. Even the Constitution can be amended, as it has 27 times already.

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.
 
This thread is not about the partisan ruminations of someone who wants to solely blame one side of the equation here. Unlike you, I disagree with the court ruling where the society and the people have domain. We the people decide what is socially acceptable, not 9 activist clowns appointed by presidents and with no oversight. You simply want to blame democrats and leftists; go do that somewhere else; it's off topic.

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
 
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.
 
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?

...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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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:
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.

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?

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.

It is a system that works. What do YOU think should replace it?

And amendments to laws don't matter, as long as 9 people simply think they should not apply. This is the reality of our current system; it doesn't actually matter if the constitutional interpretation is faithful to the founders' intent; it only matters that 9 people say they -think- it does.

So no, I've missed no point; you have. The whole mob rule narrative is a fake projection and a con in this discussion that I won't countenance.

Yes, the minority view should be protected; in our system, those people can move to a state that allows their views to proliferate if they would like.
 
How do you think the founders intended for it to be handled?

For the voters to oust the representatives who deny their will. In the case of states, if Alabama outlaws abortion, don't live there. It's relatively simple.

True. But you have to be a little careful when civil rights are at play. States should not be allowed to pass laws that violate civil rights.
 
True. But you have to be a little careful when civil rights are at play. States should not be allowed to pass laws that violate civil rights.

That's what amendments to the constitution are for. I believe over 66% of all people, representatives, states, etc, would agree to equal protection, and other rights inherent with civil rights.
 
Biggest issue is the effort to marginalize the Constitution, and violate Citizens rights under the shadow of a biased media, and a political party attempting to take unilateral control of the Country by any means necessary.

Rewriting of history and indoctrination of education systems has also damaged the country.

Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

"Historians of the twentieth century often represent the New Deal–era United States and Nazi Germany as polar opposites. This unsettling book demolishes that orthodoxy. It carefully documents how the tradition of racist laws in the United States inspired and instructed Adolf Hitler and Nazi lawmakers in fashioning their own racist policies. Many forget that as late as the 1930s, the United States remained one of the world’s most salient models of legally institutionalized racism. Nazi lawyers closely studied Jim Crow laws imposing segregation, denying equal citizenship, banning nonwhite immigration, and criminalizing miscegenation. Hitler himself praised the United States for its record on race relations, not least for its westward expansion through the conquest and extermination of Native Americans. Whitman is admirably careful not to exaggerate the influence of the U.S. model on Nazi Germany: he recognizes that twentieth-century American southern racism was decentralized rather than fascist and incapable of inspiring mass murder on the industrial scale of the Holocaust. Indeed, Nazi jurists criticized their American counterparts for their hypocrisy in publicly denying yet locally practicing systematic racism. Whitman reminds readers of the subtle ironies of modern history and of the need to be constantly vigilant against racism."

Whitman is a flaming progressive liberal democrat so he conveniently neglects to tell you a critical aspect of all this.

"Whitman, a progressive legal scholar, is also reluctant to assign blame where it is due. He talks about “American white supremacy,” “American racism,” “American law” and “American influence on the Nuremberg Laws.”36 Surely he knows that the Democratic laws were bitterly contested under the nation’s two-party system. Yes, there were antimiscegenation laws in a couple of Republican states, but America in general didn’t do this; the Democrats did. Yet as the very title of Whitman’s book suggests, he resorts to the familiar tactic of blaming America—not the Democratic Party—for inspiring Nazi policies.
." - Death of a Nation[/QUOTE]
 
Rewriting of history and indoctrination of education systems has also damaged the country.

Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

"Historians of the twentieth century often represent the New Deal–era United States and Nazi Germany as polar opposites. This unsettling book demolishes that orthodoxy. It carefully documents how the tradition of racist laws in the United States inspired and instructed Adolf Hitler and Nazi lawmakers in fashioning their own racist policies. Many forget that as late as the 1930s, the United States remained one of the world’s most salient models of legally institutionalized racism. Nazi lawyers closely studied Jim Crow laws imposing segregation, denying equal citizenship, banning nonwhite immigration, and criminalizing miscegenation. Hitler himself praised the United States for its record on race relations, not least for its westward expansion through the conquest and extermination of Native Americans. Whitman is admirably careful not to exaggerate the influence of the U.S. model on Nazi Germany: he recognizes that twentieth-century American southern racism was decentralized rather than fascist and incapable of inspiring mass murder on the industrial scale of the Holocaust. Indeed, Nazi jurists criticized their American counterparts for their hypocrisy in publicly denying yet locally practicing systematic racism. Whitman reminds readers of the subtle ironies of modern history and of the need to be constantly vigilant against racism."

Whitman is a flaming progressive liberal democrat so he conveniently neglects to tell you a critical aspect of all this.

"Whitman, a progressive legal scholar, is also reluctant to assign blame where it is due. He talks about “American white supremacy,” “American racism,” “American law” and “American influence on the Nuremberg Laws.”36 Surely he knows that the Democratic laws were bitterly contested under the nation’s two-party system. Yes, there were antimiscegenation laws in a couple of Republican states, but America in general didn’t do this; the Democrats did. Yet as the very title of Whitman’s book suggests, he resorts to the familiar tactic of blaming America—not the Democratic Party—for inspiring Nazi policies.
." - Death of a Nation
[/QUOTE]

Agree wholeheartedly. It goes hand in hand and euthanizes objective thinking and reasoning.
 
And amendments to laws don't matter, as long as 9 people simply think they should not apply. This is the reality of our current system; it doesn't actually matter if the constitutional interpretation is faithful to the founders' intent; it only matters that 9 people say they -think- it does.

So no, I've missed no point; you have. The whole mob rule narrative is a fake projection and a con in this discussion that I won't countenance.

Yes, the minority view should be protected; in our system, those people can move to a state that allows their views to proliferate if they would like.

REALLY?

Didn't we have to have a CIVIL WAR over just that very thing?

The Constitution was amended to list basic rights that the government could not infringe. Rights that no majority is allowed to diminish or eliminate.

Those rights MUST apply to ALL States and territories.

The Court system is there to provide justice, including decisions as to how those rights are/are not being violated.

Court rulings must be subject to constant Judicial and Congressional review. SCOTUS not only has the power to follow judicial precedent, but overrule it. Congress has the power to change the law.

The system works. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Rewriting of history and indoctrination of education systems has also damaged the country.

Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law

"Historians of the twentieth century often represent the New Deal–era United States and Nazi Germany as polar opposites. This unsettling book demolishes that orthodoxy. It carefully documents how the tradition of racist laws in the United States inspired and instructed Adolf Hitler and Nazi lawmakers in fashioning their own racist policies. Many forget that as late as the 1930s, the United States remained one of the world’s most salient models of legally institutionalized racism. Nazi lawyers closely studied Jim Crow laws imposing segregation, denying equal citizenship, banning nonwhite immigration, and criminalizing miscegenation. Hitler himself praised the United States for its record on race relations, not least for its westward expansion through the conquest and extermination of Native Americans. Whitman is admirably careful not to exaggerate the influence of the U.S. model on Nazi Germany: he recognizes that twentieth-century American southern racism was decentralized rather than fascist and incapable of inspiring mass murder on the industrial scale of the Holocaust. Indeed, Nazi jurists criticized their American counterparts for their hypocrisy in publicly denying yet locally practicing systematic racism. Whitman reminds readers of the subtle ironies of modern history and of the need to be constantly vigilant against racism."

Whitman is a flaming progressive liberal democrat so he conveniently neglects to tell you a critical aspect of all this.

"Whitman, a progressive legal scholar, is also reluctant to assign blame where it is due. He talks about “American white supremacy,” “American racism,” “American law” and “American influence on the Nuremberg Laws.”36 Surely he knows that the Democratic laws were bitterly contested under the nation’s two-party system. Yes, there were antimiscegenation laws in a couple of Republican states, but America in general didn’t do this; the Democrats did. Yet as the very title of Whitman’s book suggests, he resorts to the familiar tactic of blaming America—not the Democratic Party—for inspiring Nazi policies.
." - Death of a Nation
[/QUOTE]

Education systems should be restricted to education only; no religion, no "women's studies" and other sordid nonsense. You want your kid to learn "ideology" then take them to a private school, which gets no tax payer support, and educate them on your own dime.
 
REALLY?

Didn't we have to have a CIVIL WAR over just that very thing?

The Constitution was amended to list basic rights that the government could not infringe. Rights that no majority is allowed to diminish or eliminate.

Those rights MUST apply to ALL States and territories.

The Court system is there to provide justice, including decisions as to how those rights are/are not being violated.

Court rulings must be subject to constant Judicial and Congressional review. SCOTUS not only has the power to protect judicial precedent, but overrule it. Congress has the power to change the law.

The system works.

Exactly. Separation of Powers is key to our Constitutional Republic.
 
REALLY?

Didn't we have to have a CIVIL WAR over just that very thing?

The Constitution was amended to list basic rights that the government could not infringe. Rights that no majority is allowed to diminish or eliminate.

Those rights MUST apply to ALL States and territories.

The Court system is there to provide justice, including decisions as to how those rights are/are not being violated.

Court rulings must be subject to constant Judicial and Congressional review. SCOTUS not only has the power to protect judicial precedent, but overrule it. Congress has the power to change the law.

The system works. :coffeepap:

I don't believe it does. The same court that gave "blacks" rights (arguably stupid, since they clearly have rights as enumerated under the constitution and the amendments) also said money is speech, enabling massive graft, left and right, endlessly influencing policy against public will.

I agree in the case that it works in some cases; but not in all, and moreover, I think it works less than it doesn't work. Amending the constitution is the ultimate fix for this - but our elected leaders do not have any will to do that, now do they?

Thus we live under tyranny of a sort.
 

Education systems should be restricted to education only; no religion, no "women's studies" and other sordid nonsense. You want your kid to learn "ideology" then take them to a private school, which gets no tax payer support, and educate them on your own dime.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

 
Back
Top Bottom