• 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!

Do We Still Need The SCOTUS?

Do We Still Need the SCOTUS?

  • No...it serves no real purpose.

    Votes: 2 6.1%
  • Yes..we must have something to protect our Constitution.

    Votes: 24 72.7%
  • We only need it when they agree with my guys.

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • It's not that simple...I'll explain

    Votes: 4 12.1%

  • Total voters
    33
We don't need to get rid of the SCOTUS now anymore than we did when Citizen's United had people up in arms (Guess they aren't included in that "Some" group of people)
 
We don't need to get rid of the SCOTUS now anymore than we did when Citizen's United had people up in arms (Guess they aren't included in that "Some" group of people)

This is like the 20th time you mentioned. Who the hell are Citizens United?
 
We need an AI instead of these partisan hacks witrh their lifetime appointments.
 
We need an AI instead of these partisan hacks witrh their lifetime appointments.

mac-bot-futurama1.jpg
 
Well, if they keep making decisions, that enable the feds to do anything, regardless of the wording of the constitution, then they become obsolete.
I hope they realize this.
 
the OP appears to be arguing that because the SCOTUS is made up of imperfect human beings, who often come to conclusions he disagrees with, we should scap the whole Supreme Court.

if we did this, there would be NOTHING to keep the govt. from becoming Nazi Germany.

yes, I Godwined the thread, as it was appropriate to do so.
 
the OP appears to be arguing that because the SCOTUS is made up of imperfect human beings, who often come to conclusions he disagrees with, we should scap the whole Supreme Court.

if we did this, there would be NOTHING to keep the govt. from becoming Nazi Germany.

yes, I Godwined the thread, as it was appropriate to do so.

But congress has the power to tax BASED on what? 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.
 
I'm telling you....Conservatives try and deligitimize any institution that doesn't agree with them. Their totalitarian thinking is showing.
 
I'm telling you....Conservatives try and deligitimize any institution that doesn't agree with them. Their totalitarian thinking is showing.

All generalizations are WRONG...including this one.


I like the AI idea except it would be down to the partisan hack that wrote the program.
 
I'm telling you....Conservatives try and deligitimize any institution that doesn't agree with them. Their totalitarian thinking is showing.

What? If ONE out of the nine robed umpires finds reason A to make something constitutional, 4 find reason B to make something constitutional and 4 find reason B to make something unconstitutional we just add up all of the yeses and nos and call it a 5/4 MAJORITY opinion, even if 8/9 disagree with it? (I know one umpire sat it out, but you get my drift).
 
No, it is not necessary. It's not irrelevant, but it's a barrier to fair and efficient determinations of what is and is not constitutional.

It's inherently unfair because it puts the power to decide constitutionality into the hands of too few individuals. Such a concentration of power is dangerous in and of itself as it enables its decisions to be influenced strongly by interests of the elite in our society rather than the constitutionality of the laws in question.

It's inherently inefficient because of the time it takes to come to decisions. This inefficiency leads to one main problem: unconstitutional laws may be in effect for long periods of time which causes Americans to live under unjust laws and have their rights infringed upon for unacceptable periods of time.

A better solution would be to determine the constitutionality of a proposed law in Congress before it is even put on the floor for consideration.

I think the approach outlined in TPD's post is called "post-modern liberalism. It diverges from classical liberalism in material ways about the relationship of govt. with citizens. PML empowers govt. expansion at the expense of the ideal of individual liberty.
 
What? If ONE out of the nine robed umpires finds reason A to make something constitutional, 4 find reason B to make something constitutional and 4 find reason B to make something unconstitutional we just add up all of the yeses and nos and call it a 5/4 MAJORITY opinion, even if 8/9 disagree with it? (I know one umpire sat it out, but you get my drift).

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?
 
Science...Academics...now you're starting to see it applied to the most conservative Supreme Court in a long time.

It's totalitarian thinking.

Except there are several conservative or conservative-leaning posters in this thread specifically saying NOT to discard the SCOTUS...so your premise is ridiculous, insulting, and entirely counterproductive.
 
It would seem "Some" folks now believe the Supreme Court of the United States to be an irrelevant body, as the decisions that come down are no longer the last word on our constitution. Between the Roe v.Wade issue, Immigration, and now ACA, they have decided to fight to the death regardless of law.

So...whats the point?


Yep, we need the Supreme Court.

I think we could possibly do without the Congress if we get high tech enough to let the public vote on bills. Or we might be able to do without the President by just letting the Speaker of the House also be CEO of the country similar to the UK's Prime Minister.
 
Except there are several conservative or conservative-leaning posters in this thread specifically saying NOT to discard the SCOTUS...so your premise is ridiculous, insulting, and entirely counterproductive.

I didn't mean it on a personal level I meant it at an institutional and aggregate level. Is it not true? Have conservatives at a national level attacked Academics and Science? Do a lot of Conservatives distrust what scientists or academics say? Based on polling conservatives distrust those instititutions at a much higher level than Liberals or Independents.
 
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?

When an overwhelming number of SCOTUS justices disagree with the majority opinion, then why is it constitutional?
 
When an overwhelming number of SCOTUS justices disagree with the majority opinion, then why is it constitutional?

Because that's how it operates? I mean...what should it require a super majority? So something can pass via elected officials yet 4 supreme court justices can shut it down? With the number of 5-4 opinions lately you're basically saying that virtually nothing will get through the Supreme Court. So if it gets through deadlocked Congress it will die in a deadlocked Supreme Court?
 
Being tied down by the supremacy of a document that reflects obsolete 18th Century thinking and disregards popular opinion is similar to Christianity being tied down to a primitive Bible. Instead of being subjected to fundamentalist Constitutionality, laws should only be judged by what the majority of people think is for the good of the country.

In Marbury v. Madison, the Federalist Court committed the logical fallacy of interpreting the Constitution as giving it the right to interpret the Constitution. Obviously, the Justices' dicatatorial power wasn't granted by the Constitution or they would have been appealed to in order to cancel laws enacted in the 12 years of previous Federalist rule. When, under Jefferson, democracy was feared as a Reign of Terror, the anti-democratic court took this opportunity to take the law away from the people. Jefferson, by the way, was not at the Constitutional Convention and later violated the ineffective and impractical Constitution with his Lousiana Purchase. Being America's main champion against kingly powers, he was also outraged by Judicial Supremacy and intimidated the Court by impeaching the Federalist usurpers. Andrew Jackson also defied the Court in removing a clear and present Indian threat to the Southeastern states.

In a country ruled by the people and for the people, the only purpose in having a Constitution and a Supreme Court is to rule on cases of conflicting jurisdiction. For example, if Texas banned flag-burning and Congress permitted it, it would not be a free speech issue, but would be rationally settled by allowing the burning of the American flag in Texas but not the Lone Star flag.
 
It would seem "Some" folks now believe the Supreme Court of the United States to be an irrelevant body, as the decisions that come down are no longer the last word on our constitution. Between the Roe v.Wade issue, Immigration, and now ACA, they have decided to fight to the death regardless of law.

So...whats the point?


It's not that simple.

The SCOTUS was never originally intended to be the final word on the Constitutionality of laws and acts of government, but rather appropriated that role through implied judicial powers.

I'm okay with Judicial Review... it is long established and has often served us well. Certainly we need at least one body that is dedicated to putting on the brakes when Congress/etc exceeds their Constitutional mandate.


But that isn't the be-all-end-all of Constitutionality, nor of whether a policy is a good policy or one desired by the public. The Congress has the Constitutional power to remove an item from SCOTUS purview, but to my knowlege it has rarely ever been used.... it would certainly raise a stink. A law may be Constitutional but still be repealed by Congress... the Constitution is more about limits than about "mandates".

In theory, every branch and division of government has its checks and balances against the others.... the SCOTUS has its place, but its word is not always equivalent to Papal Infallibility.
 
Except there are several conservative or conservative-leaning posters in this thread specifically saying NOT to discard the SCOTUS...so your premise is ridiculous, insulting, and entirely counterproductive.

He didn't say you were trying to abolish SCOTUS. At least not in the post you're referencing. He wrote that they are trying to "delegitimize" it. That in and of itself is entirely true. Conservatives try to destroy the legitimacy of institutions that don't agree with them. Example: any scientific organization that argues in favor of: evolution, global warming, etc. In the liberal arts they completely dismiss any non-revisionist who says the civil war was mainly about slavery. Then when it comes to the media they attack (insert your source here) when it labels Republicans as Republicans and Democrats as Democrats. Still think this is not the case? I remember j-mac once telling me that NASA had no credibility. Can you imagine that? It's absolute disgusting the disdain that conservatism as an ideology has for academia.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom