• 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!

This is why the SCOTUS needs to be ousted

This is called a preemptive strike. We can expect the SCOTUS to be under constant attack from conservatives and the conservative media for the next 4 to 8 years. They see that Trump is probably going to lose and Clinton will be picking 2-3 Justices. So everything the SCOTUS does, every ruling that even hints of being left of center will come under vicious daily attack.

Including the whole court should be abolished.

The court is not supposed to be political. It's sole job is to uphold and defend the constitution.
It doesn't have the ability to change or rewrite the constitution in any way.

Yet that is exactly what some of their rulings have done. There is only 1 way to change or modify the constitution.
 
We have a definition of words for a reason.

It basically says what it says and it doesn't take a law degree to understand or argue it.

Many words have vague definitions and/or more than 1 meaning. There's plenty of words in the Constitution that are not clear and defined. The Constitution has never been specific.

Your own bias and interpretations prove that.
 
Not at all. I can read. I understand words and definitions.
The only reason people try to debate it is to change what it means through unconstitutional methods.

The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to change the constitution but yet that is what people try to get it to do.
You keep telling yourself that.
 
This is called a preemptive strike. We can expect the SCOTUS to be under constant attack from conservatives and the conservative media for the next 4 to 8 years. They see that Trump is probably going to lose and Clinton will be picking 2-3 Justices. So everything the SCOTUS does, every ruling that even hints of being left of center will come under vicious daily attack.

Including the whole court should be abolished.
Then they should hold hearings on Garland and get what they can while they can.
 
Supreme Court cautious on new cases as term begins under cloud of vacancy politics | Fox News

"A tie does nobody any good," Justice Elena Kagan said earlier this month. "We're there to resolve cases that need deciding, answer hotly contested issues that need resolving, and you can't do that with a tie vote."

There should be very few 5-4 or tie decisions if the members of the court are in compliance with the Constitution.
She openly and basically admits that they use the political ideology for their rulings instead of upholding the constitution.

The constitution is not clear thus we have so many challenges for the courts to ponder.

Education is never mentioned as a federal power yet we now have a cabinet level, federal education department with an annual budget of over $70 billion.

The federal power (added by the 16A) to "tax income from all sources" never mentioned taxation at different rates (based on amount or source) or based upon how (or upon who) that income was later (not) spent - it absolutely did not say that corporations/businesses are to be taxed differently than people.

The bottom line is that the SCOTUS allows many federal "powers" never explicitly granted by the constitution.

What does the constitution say about abortion, marriage, education, income redistribution, housing subsidies, medical care insurance or the handling of classified data?
 
Not at all. I can read. I understand words and definitions.
The only reason people try to debate it is to change what it means through unconstitutional methods.

The SCOTUS doesn't have the power to change the constitution but yet that is what people try to get it to do.

Isn't that (bolded above) exactly what SCOTUS precedent is all about? Did that alone not establish federal (court?) power over state abortion or gun laws?
 
The constitution is pretty clear. So unless you are imputing your own bias into it
There is little question.

There is a huge question as to whether PPACA (mandated for all - subsidized for some) or Hillary's "debt free" college (for 83% of people paid for by taxing the other 17% more) is constitutional.
 
The constitution is not clear thus we have so many challenges for the courts to ponder.

No it is pretty clear the reason we have challenges is because government continues to try and take away rights from people.

Education is never mentioned as a federal power yet we now have a cabinet level, federal education department with an annual budget of over $70 billion.

Yep which is grossly misused and has hijacked the education system from the states. It doesn't need to be that large with that big of a budget.

The federal power (added by the 16A) to "tax income from all sources" never mentioned taxation at different rates (based on amount or source) or based upon how (or upon who) that income was later (not) spent - it absolutely did not say that corporations/businesses are to be taxed differently than people.

It allows for taxation pretty simple.

The bottom line is that the SCOTUS allows many federal "powers" never explicitly granted by the constitution.

I know which is a huge issue.

What does the constitution say about abortion, marriage, education, income redistribution, housing subsidies, medical care insurance or the handling of classified data?

abortion was a state rights issue
The constitution doesn't say anything about marriage which again a states rights issue,
right to personal property and anti-seizure laws should take care of income redistribution.

The SCOTUS screwed everyone on the healthcare issue and we lost a ton of freedom over that one.

Classified data is handled by internal laws by the government.
 
Last edited:
There is a huge question as to whether PPACA (mandated for all - subsidized for some) or Hillary's "debt free" college (for 83% of people paid for by taxing the other 17% more) is constitutional.

ppaca was unconstitutional. No where does the constitution give the government right to force people to buy a private product until the SCOTUS said they could.
now where does it say that government can force people into a commerce transaction against their will until the SCOTUS said they could.

she would need to get a bill through congress. She herself even as president would not have the power to enact such a thing.
 
Can't debate with a closed mind.

pot meet kettle.

The fact is the SCOTUS does not have the power to change or amend the constitution. Yet they do it on a consistent basis.
They interject their political ideology vs what the constitution says. This is a huge danger to our freedom.

We also have no recourse in the matter as even though the constitution grants us the right to take our case to the government
the SCOTUS has violated this by only allowing lawyers to talk before the SCOTUS. You as a citizen have 0 standing even though
it is your constitutional right to comment in front of the SCOTUS.
 
lol

Yes, because there is absolutely no ambiguity whatsoever in any of the provisions of the Constitution. Yes, phrases like "cruel and unusual punishment" and "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" are crystal clear.



Actually, the vast majority of the time they are relying on their theories of jurisprudence.

Nor will "ousting" the SCOTUS change anything. Whoever replaces them will be selected based on both theories of jurisprudence, on ideology, on expedient political preferences.

Many of these terms are crystal clear, when judges try to rule the death penalty unconstitutional as the left wing of the court did last year they use this invented phrase "evolving standards" why? Because they cannot honestly claim cruel and unusual punishment includes capital punishment as the constitution explicitly authorizes it for treason and every one of the original 13 colonies openly practiced it.
 
She isn't my favorite justice but how did you get that from what she said? A tie vote lets the lower court ruling stand and means that no precedential decision is set for the other circuits. That means the circuits are left to their own devices on important issues which increases the potential for clashes and unequal outcomes. It isn't political to desire conclusive decisions.

You have a favorite Supreme Court Justice?
 
You have a favorite Supreme Court Justice?

I have a few I have a higher opinion of than others. I actually just realized I misread the OP and thought it was Sotomayor who was making this statement. Of those living my favorites are probably Kagan, Roberts, and Kennedy (Some real misgivings about Kennedy though). Also, for all his faults I liked Scalia.
 
I have a few I have a higher opinion of than others. I actually just realized I misread the OP and thought it was Sotomayor who was making this statement. Of those living my favorites are probably Kagan, Roberts, and Kennedy (Some real misgivings about Kennedy though). Also, for all his faults I liked Scalia.

Do you have their Trading Cards? ;)

I hear you... some are better than others...
 
Pretty clear to me.
Oh, really?

General Washington had deserting soldiers flogged and/or hung. At that time, those punishments were not classified as cruel or unusual enough to be illegal; today, they are. So where does the Constitution define the standards for cruel and unusual punishment? Where does it give us a precise list of the criteria and/or legal punishments?

In the year 1787, did the Framers all know that white supremacists would discuss overthrowing the federal government via the Internet?

Where is "under the jurisdiction" precisely defined?

What exactly is the limit of the Commerce Clause? Where were those limits precisely defined?

The reality is that the Framers intentionally allowed for some flexibility. They knew they couldn't predict every possible future scenario -- and equally important is that they did not want to do so.

If such things are "clear" to you, then it's only because you are conflating your own political preferences with what is Constitutional.


Which is not their job. If the next set can't uphold the constitution then they can be got rid of as well until
These people get a clue.
Oh? And which neutral, objective agents decide what it means to "uphold the Constitution?" Have you not noticed who appoints and confirms SCOTUS justices?

If YOU want to decide, then I guess you ought to run for President. Oh, and make sure your party also controls Congress. Better get started. lol....
 
Oh, really?

General Washington had deserting soldiers flogged and/or hung. At that time, those punishments were not classified as cruel or unusual enough to be illegal; today, they are. So where does the Constitution define the standards for cruel and unusual punishment? Where does it give us a precise list of the criteria and/or legal punishments?

In the year 1787, did the Framers all know that white supremacists would discuss overthrowing the federal government via the Internet?

Where is "under the jurisdiction" precisely defined?

What exactly is the limit of the Commerce Clause? Where were those limits precisely defined?

The reality is that the Framers intentionally allowed for some flexibility. They knew they couldn't predict every possible future scenario -- and equally important is that they did not want to do so.

If such things are "clear" to you, then it's only because you are conflating your own political preferences with what is Constitutional.

Not really if you understand the constitution and what it was meant for. Yep they allowed for some flexibility, however they did not allow 9 people to rewrite or add or take away from it
they created a separate process for that to happen.

I haven't conflated anything anywhere just your opinion.

Oh? And which neutral, objective agents decide what it means to "uphold the Constitution?" Have you not noticed who appoints and confirms SCOTUS justices?
If YOU want to decide, then I guess you ought to run for President. Oh, and make sure your party also controls Congress. Better get started. lol....

that is why another one hasn't been appointed. the policital hack in chief can't seem to pick one that knows what the job of the scotus is.
of course he doesn't even know what the job of the scotus is.

heck he doesn't even know what is and isn't constitutional.
 
Many of these terms are crystal clear....
lol

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen" is crystal clear. There is essentially no ambiguity.

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" is NOT "crystal clear." It is ambiguous. There is no specific determination, listed in the Constitutional, of what qualifies as excessive bail. There is no specific list of what punishments are cruel or unusual. There certainly is nothing that specifically states that death by electrocution is Constitutional.


when judges try to rule the death penalty unconstitutional as the left wing of the court did last year they use this invented phrase "evolving standards" why? Because they cannot honestly claim cruel and unusual punishment includes capital punishment as the constitution explicitly authorizes it for treason and every one of the original 13 colonies openly practiced it.
Or, it's because standards do in fact change over time, and the Constitution allows for that type of flexibility.

It is irrelevant if a punishment was considered legal in 1791 -- because the 8th Amendment did NOT say "cruel and unusual circa the date of ratification." If that's what they wanted, that's what they should have ratified. They didn't.

They left it up to the federal government -- or better yet, to the American people, working through their government -- to decide such issues.
 
Not really if you understand the constitution and what it was meant for. Yep they allowed for some flexibility, however they did not allow 9 people to rewrite or add or take away from it
they created a separate process for that to happen.
I do understand the Constitution, what it was written for, and the powers of the various branches.

Judicial review was expected. Better yet, we've had over 200 years to revise it. If you don't want the SCOTUS to have the power of judicial review, you have no choice but to amend or rewrite the Constitution.


I haven't conflated anything anywhere just your opinion.
lol

Oh, really? OK then. Tell us what policies you dislike that are also Constitutional. Similarly, list the policies you'd like to see that are not Constitutional. If you can't think of any, then that's pretty good indication that you are conflating your own preferences with what is Constitutionally valid.

After all, even the authors and ratifiers of the Constitution were not of one mind about issues like militias, slavery, bicameral legislation, the wisdom of specifying rights in the Constitution....


that is why another one hasn't been appointed. the policital hack in chief can't seem to pick one that knows what the job of the scotus is.
lol

That "hack" is, almost certainly unlike you, a Constitutional scholar.

Plus, I'm sure that many of the justices whom you personally disapprove of were not appointed by Obama.
 
Back
Top Bottom