Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

ThePlayDrive
ThePlayDrive is offline
Sage

ThePlayDrive's Avatar

Join Date
Mar 2011
Last Seen
Today @ 04:18 PM
Lean
Undisclosed
Posts
10,925
Liked
3714 times
10k posts 1 year Has Changed Name

Quote Originally Posted by tecoyah View Post
Wait....you say the SCOTUS takes too long, yet think our congress will be faster?

You seriously gotta be joking.
Do you have an argument? I don't see one.

ThePlayDrive said:

There are three main ways that this could happen:
1. Have a certain level of constitutional expertise be required for being a member of Congress. The test that determines such expertise would be put together by a diverse committee of constitutional scholars and veteran judges. Because members of Congress would have a more than sufficient understanding of the Constitution, they will vote on the constitutionality of laws within Congress and a super majority will be required for approval.

2. Create a multi-partisan committee within Congress dedicated to determining the constitutionality of laws.

3. Have Congress submit proposed laws to a body of judges, who then determine whether or not its constitutional before it is put before the floor.

4. A combination of any of the above.


It's incredibly likely that presidents are also influenced by their own agenda when appointing judges which is why people consider it so important for their own party to appoint them. That's also one of the issues that manifests itself in judicial activism. Interestingly enough, having a single individual appoint judges to the court may open the judgement of constitutionality to more bias than having multi-partisan committees determine constitutionality since the latter ensures that people of different agendas come to the same conclusion while the former opens up the possibility of a stacked court.

Click to expand...

If you actually fail to see my point...it goes very far to explain your proposed solution, as you are somewhat feeble minded. You propose creating a new committee within a Congress so inept and partisan divided that it cannot manage those tasks it is charged with already. If you honestly think a NEW group within this part of Government will speed up Constitutional Law Decisions, you may not see the reality everyone else does.

This all seems extreme overreaction. Why not ask do we need the legislative or executive branch that passed the law in the first place? I don't ever want the public voting on this crap either though. They're totally unqualified. I'd trust them with a vote on prom queen and that's about it. The rights of the few need to be upheld, and I put more faith in unimpeachable judges to do so than senators from Alabama or governors from the "niggerhead ranch."

Yes. But not because it is the governing body that we depend upon to protect the Constitution.

Yes. Just because Conservatives and Republicans are butt hurt over the recent ruling does not mean we should get rid of the USSC all of the sudden.

Hatuey said:

People were calling for the abolishment of the SCOTUS when that case was decided?

Click to expand...

Too be frank, save for a few people so far on the fringe that they can't honestly and objectively be considered in a similar position as Republicans or even your average American conservative, I've not really seen calls for the "abolishment" of the SCOTUS. I've seen people questioning the constitutionality of the decision, which I saw with CU. I've seen people questioning the legitimacy of the court, which I saw with CU when people were claiming that the case was decided for partisan reasons rather than legitimate legal reasons. I've seen stupid lofty rhetoric but I saw similar during CU when there were cries that it destroys the concept of one person one vote.

iliveonramen said:

After passing through 2 chambers of an elected Congress and being signed by an elected President....it then went to the Supreme Court and was found constitutional. I mean how many hoops does legislation have to jump through for it to be considered legitimate?

Click to expand...

It requires no hoops. It just should be constitutional. The SC are the ones that are supposed to be impartial and arent bought and paid for.
The rest of those animals live in the lobbyist zoo.

A good idea is a good idea and it doesnt take 1 guy to swing the vote.


Assessing The Supreme Court's Recent Term


In 44% of their cases they all vote the same way.


I am thinking this vote may actually be good for us in the long run now. If only because it may wake some people up as to the unwarranted expansion of government that has been ongoing since at least 1913.

We need it for the process of checks and balances. Simple as that to me.

akyron said:

It requires no hoops. It just should be constitutional. The SC are the ones that are supposed to be impartial and arent bought and paid for.
The rest of those animals live in the lobbyist zoo.

A good idea is a good idea and it doesnt take 1 guy to swing the vote.


Assessing The Supreme Court's Recent Term


In 44% of their cases they all vote the same way.


I am thinking this vote may actually be good for us in the long run now. If only because it may wake some people up as to the unwarranted expansion of government that has been ongoing since at least 1913.

Click to expand...

But congress has the power to tax for the PPACA BASED on what, certainly NOT the 16th amendment? What is CALLED a federal "income tax" is, in fact, not taxation of income, it is taxation of an entire personal or business "budget", the FIT code has FAR more lines of tax law pertaining to the EXPENDATURES of that income, than pertaining to the actual INCOME received. As soon as you base "income taxation" on what that income was spent on, rather than simply the income itself, then you have veered far afield from simple "income taxation", and are now into social engineering (never mentioned in the 16th amendment), rather than simply raising revenue by taxing income, the stated constitutional purpose of the 16th amendment.

The SCOTUS, IMHO, must step back and look at the actual INTENT of the constitution and its many amendments. Allowing taxation of "income" to be based ONLY on how that income was LATER spent should be struck down, as not complying with "equal protection" under the law (the 14th amendment). Once two citizens, working side by side for the same wages, at the same job, for the same employer, get different "income" taxation rates, that ALONE should have triggered SCOTUS constitutional objections.

The 16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Note that NO mention of "exceptions for how that income was spent" were ever mentioned, yet 95% of our tax code now adresses that alone.

The 14th amendment (section 1): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection SHOULD apply to taxation of INCOME alone not how (or upon whom) that income was spent AFTER it was earned. Income taxation applies only to income FROM all sources, as NO mention of how it was later spent is included in the 16th amendment.

It is interesting to see the GOP get all butt hurt and start undermining our highest court...Considering the way we all let citizens united fall into place without bitching and moaning. Very telling, as far as the mindset of the GOP.

{No....you did not win...I'm telling Mom!}

AreteCourage said:

We need it for the process of checks and balances. Simple as that to me.

Click to expand...

Instead, we the people should be the only check on the legislative and executive. The supremacy of the Court is just another layer of arrogant power dominating the American people. The few checks we have on these powerful outside forces are weak and irrelevant. Despite pathetic nobodies trying to feel important by taking the side of the rulers against the people, the real reason our citizens are apathetic and refuse to participate is that they know they are mere spectators and not players. Yet the people are the ones who have to suffer from the decisions made by the political elites. The people are the ones who know most about what is going on in real life rather than in the out-of-touch fantasy world inhabited by isolated governing bodies. Electing these outsiders is not voting, it is only a forced and false choice between which ignorant, sheltered, conceited, pre-owned candidate will do all our voting for us. So the people should be allowed to vote on issues and declare a law invalid, not the Supreme Court with its outrageous spinning and legalistic double-talk.

tecoyah said:

It is interesting to see the GOP get all butt hurt and start undermining our highest court...Considering the way we all let citizens united fall into place without bitching and moaning. Very telling, as far as the mindset of the GOP.

{No....you did not win...I'm telling Mom!}

Click to expand...

But declaring that bribery is freedom of speech guarantees that we wil get the best government money can buy.

tecoyah said:

It is interesting to see the GOP get all butt hurt and start undermining our highest court...Considering the way we all let citizens united fall into place without bitching and moaning. Very telling, as far as the mindset of the GOP.

{No....you did not win...I'm telling Mom!}

Click to expand...

Wazzuh?

You had posters here commenting how the ruling of the SCOTUS was going to be about the end of Democracy and that unless it was "Corrected" (insinuating the Supreme Court was wrong in it's decision) that corporations would control the US. This wasn't "bitching and moaning"?

You had a POTUS using the State of the Union address to publicly chastise the SCOTUS for their decision. You had one Democratic politician comparing it to the Dred Scott case in terms of how "wrong" he thought the court got it and another prominent one calling it a terrible mistake and insinuating that the Court significantly overreached its boundries. That wasn't "undermining" our highest court?

You had multiple prominent democratics launching initiatives and putting forth actual bills to try and amend the constitution to overrule the decision. Is that any different than Republicans suggesting they want to fight Obamacare and overturn it?

That's not even going onto the countless arguments of it being "conservative activism on the court" or the continual whining through mocking of "Corporations are People", and on and on. The one difference I'll give is that typically the left is more wordy and at time smore eloquent in their whining and bitching...but don't give me this crap that there was no "bitching and moaning" or attempts ot "undermine" the court after CU came out.

Zyphlin said:

Wazzuh?

You had posters here commenting how the ruling of the SCOTUS was going to be about the end of Democracy and that unless it was "Corrected" (insinuating the Supreme Court was wrong in it's decision) that corporations would control the US. This wasn't "bitching and moaning"?

You had a POTUS using the State of the Union address to publicly chastise the SCOTUS for their decision. You had one Democratic politician comparing it to the Dred Scott case in terms of how "wrong" he thought the court got it and another prominent one calling it a terrible mistake and insinuating that the Court significantly overreached its boundries. That wasn't "undermining" our highest court?

You had multiple prominent democratics launching initiatives and putting forth actual bills to try and amend the constitution to overrule the decision. Is that any different than Republicans suggesting they want to fight Obamacare and overturn it?

That's not even going onto the countless arguments of it being "conservative activism on the court" or the continual whining through mocking of "Corporations are People", and on and on. The one difference I'll give is that typically the left is more wordy and at time smore eloquent in their whining and bitching...but don't give me this crap that there was no "bitching and moaning" or attempts ot "undermine" the court after CU came out.

Click to expand...

Its a pot and kettle thing some people like to perform over and over.

It happens from time to time on both sides of the aisle. Those mosty guilty of it cant see it for what it is.