This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
The Supreme Court
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Skyfire
This is primarily for MyTie, since RBin is getting spammed atm, but anyone may add their input.
Can I suggest a
book
to you? I'd skip the Limbaugh intro... it's very dry. However, the book itself is very factual, and without opinion. If you don't mind an exceptionally long and technical description of the judicial branch, its a good book. I listened to the audio tape, to be honest.
If (When) I make a run to the local library to get a library card so I can order the book, I might do so.
Also, the judicial branch is not there to make law. To do that, or use thier judicial president, instead of law, is to ignore the system of checks and balances. When they ruled on abortion, any ruleing they made was unconstitutional, since the constition doesn't say anything on abortion.
The argument you're making isn't logical. If the Constitution says that you have the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the right to privacy is necessary to pursue Liberty, then it
is
safe to rule on that at the Supreme Court. That the ruling affects abortion is merely a consequence of the case.
The power the Supreme Court currently holds amazes me also, though I find it funny that you think there are
any
checks and balances on the Court. There never have been, and I would be willing to bet that there never will be. Why? The President has just enough influence to be happy with the arrangement. Looking over the past, a President usually appoints 2-5, with F. Roosevelt appointing 8 and Washington 11.
Post by
MyTie
Also, the judicial branch is not there to make law. To do that, or use thier judicial president, instead of law, is to ignore the system of checks and balances. When they ruled on abortion, any ruleing they made was unconstitutional, since the constition doesn't say anything on abortion.
The argument you're making isn't logical. If the Constitution says that you have the right to pursue Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and the right to privacy is necessary to pursue Liberty, then it
is
safe to rule on that at the Supreme Court. That the ruling affects abortion is merely a consequence of the case.
The power the Supreme Court currently holds amazes me also, though I find it funny that you think there are
any
checks and balances on the Court. There never have been, and I would be willing to bet that there never will be. Why? The President has just enough influence to be happy with the arrangement. Looking over the past, a President usually appoints 2-5, with F. Roosevelt appointing 8 and Washington 11.
If the system worked correctly, the legislature would be able to check the court by stateing laws that clearly told the judges how to rule, and the president appoints who makes the judgements. Through judicial precident, which origionated with marbury vs madison, the judicial branch has been able to tell itself how to rule. This unconstitutional concept has effectively expanded its power to dangerous levels. If anything, the supreme court, and all courts, need to be reigned in, not trusted.
Onto the concept of privacy: NAMBLA? Nuff said.
Post by
Dorean
Can this be the argument bin?
Post by
283199
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
Congress can make amendments to the constitution. Check and Balance.
They can make Amendments about anything, whereas I was speaking of specific check between the branches. You can also impeach judges, as with any other such government official, but that's again a non-specific check.
If the system worked correctly, the legislature would be able to check the court by stateing laws that clearly told the judges how to rule, and the president appoints who makes the judgements. Through judicial precident, which origionated with marbury vs madison, the judicial branch has been able to tell itself how to rule. This unconstitutional concept has effectively expanded its power to dangerous levels. If anything, the supreme court, and all courts, need to be reigned in, not trusted.
Onto the concept of privacy: NAMBLA? Nuff said.
Yes, but: You're focusing the power in the Legislature, thereby and predictably creating a catch 22 situation. A judge can't rule against a law which prohibits him from ruling against a law, and suddenly, any position of power that the judicial system had is
gone
. Suddenly, it's just the President and the Congress... would you trust your country to those two branches alone? I wouldn't.
In another case, that's outside of Congress' jurisdiction. They cannot make law which tells a judge how to rule.
Judicial review and precedent is the much preferable. It is a precarious position, but one I would much rather have than the alternative.
As for NAMBLA: Fail argument is fail. I don't even see how they matter.
Post by
MyTie
Yes, but: You're focusing the power in the Legislature, thereby and predictably creating a catch 22 situation. A judge can't rule against a law which prohibits him from ruling against a law, and suddenly, any position of power that the judicial system had is
gone
. Suddenly, it's just the President and the Congress... would you trust your country to those two branches alone? I wouldn't.
In another case, that's outside of Congress' jurisdiction. They cannot make law which tells a judge how to rule.The power to overturn laws by the judicial branch is supposed to be focused in the hands of juries. If a jury finds a law unconstitutional, then they should have the final say. Too bad juries are instructed to follow the letter of the law, instead of what they believe is right.
The legislative branch can tell the justices how to rule. Amendment: Abortion is legal, in every form. How could a justice rule that it wasn't then legal?
The justices power comes by ruleing when the legislative branch and the executive branch break the law.Judicial review and precedent is the much preferable. It is a precarious position, but one I would much rather have than the alternative.
As for NAMBLA: Fail argument is fail. I don't even see how they matter.The justice branch should rule on the law. Judicial review says they can rule based on prior opinions. How is this a good thing?
And the NAMBLA arguement is that what they do in privacy should be protected because it is done in private. Right? Well, obviously not. Privacy, when laws are being broken, should be taken away. This is especially the case when other's prosuit of life liberty and happiness is being impeded, in the case of small boys, or unborn babies.... see where I am going? The right to privacy is not really an inaliable right. That is, unless you can point to the right of privacy. I've never read about it.
I really want to drive home this illegality of judical review. The judicial branch is supposed to rule based on the law, not itself.
Post by
Skyfire
The legislative branch can tell the justices how to rule. Amendment: Abortion is legal, in every form. How could a justice rule that it wasn't then legal?
Which is a case we already discarded as unlikely. I would however, respond to a case that was likely.
The justices power comes by ruleing when the legislative branch and the executive branch break the law.
And the Legislative branches broke the Supreme Law as the Supreme Court interpreted it. Should the Supreme Court be able to interpret the Constitution? Well, how else are we going to say "this is right and this is wrong"?
The power to overturn laws by the judicial branch is supposed to be focused in the hands of juries. If a jury finds a law unconstitutional, then they should have the final say. Too bad juries are instructed to follow the letter of the law, instead of what they believe is right.
The justice branch should rule on the law. Judicial review says they can rule based on prior opinions. How is this a good thing?
You're telling me that juries should be allowed to rule on "what is right" and not judges? Now how does that make sense?
And the NAMBLA arguement is that what they do in privacy should be protected because it is done in private. Right? Well, obviously not.
I'm not even sure how you can make this argument, as that's not what I understand their platform to be. Feel free to leave me a link for teh infoz.
Privacy, when laws are being broken, should be taken away.
This is the flip side of what the Fifth says, essentially. If we have reason to believe laws are being broken, then your right to both privacy and freedom is forfeit.
The right to privacy is not really an inaliable right. That is, unless you can point to the right of privacy. I've never read about it.
Read the article on Wikipedia about Roe v. Wade. It should be able to explain this notion of a right to privacy better than I can.
I really want to drive home this illegality of judical review. The judicial branch is supposed to rule based on the law, not itself.
The problem being that there is no law to use to rule on lesser law when you are ruling on the Supreme Law. This is the reason why the Supreme Court is the end of the chain, and hence why judicial review is necessary. Someone has to be the final one, and this position necessarily required judicial review.
I can only hold that Marshall's logic in Marbury v. Madison was the correct to take. Either there is someone who says "this is a contradiction to the Constitution" and then deems the law null and void, or we have no Supreme Law. Consequently, we have no law at all, as that reasoning can be extended reasonably.
Post by
313143
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skyfire
You really should not have gone the Roe route. Even as a rabid supporter of privacy rights, I can state without any doubt that Roe was one of the most poorly argued decisions this side of Brown v Board of Education. Reno v ACLU has a much stronger argument for privacy rights.
I didn't know of others which were in
support
of privacy.
Post by
TheMediator
Honestly I don't know why people are so obsessed with the right to privacy. I honestly think Big Brother is a great concept. Its like the whole God-thing, only it can actually extend its hand and punish you in the here and now. If you're not doing anything wrong you have no reason to be worried about your privacy, and if you are doing something wrong then Big Brother can catch you and punish you.
Post by
MyTie
Skyfire - Our main contention is Judicial Review. Go read that book and get back to me. It gives a very good historical perspective on Judicial Review.
In essence, the Supreme Court is uncheckable. I think this is bad, you think this is good.
Amagaim - Our justice system works so that if you want to make abortion legal you should have to
DISPROVE
your two points:
1) Prove the existence of the soul.
2) Prove when the soul is instilled into a fetus.
Since these things are compeletely impossible to prove for ANY being, the government should be able to legally abort me at age 25 if I am unwanted, since I cannot prove my soul exists.
TheMediator - Peaple use 'privacy' as an escuse for... well.. everything.
Post by
TheMediator
The check to the supreme court is that Supreme Court Justices are not immortal. Therefore, they will die, and then the president can fill their slots.
Post by
MyTie
The check to the supreme court is that Supreme Court Justices are not immortal. Therefore, they will die, and then the president can fill their slots.
They can also be impeached by the legislature.
The executive branch is in charge of enforcing law, which is, the police. So, the executive branch, after arresting people, could theoretically not turn them over to the judicial branch.
The executive branch can pardon convicts of the judicial branch
Executive branch controls the prosecuters in cases
The judicial branch is supposed to rule based on the constitution. The legislature could rewrite it into the mcdonalds menu if they wanted. Technically, the judicial branch would have to follow it. Although, the check there is the presidential veto.
Post by
Skyfire
In essence, the Supreme Court is uncheckable. I think this is bad, you think this is good.
You misconstrue me yet again. I have said that the position we're in now is
preferable
to a Supreme Court with the "fixes" you ask of.
Judicial review is a Good Thing™, especially when it isn't abused. For the most part, it hasn't been, as the Supreme Court is limited in its original jurisdiction, and that would be the primary way to go about abusing the power of judicial review. I also certainly agree that the status needs to change, but I am unsure of how best to go about doing so without a loss of power in the judicial branch.
Also: Way to change the topic right out from under me; for whatever reason, you decided not to reply to the other post.
Post by
MyTie
In essence, the Supreme Court is uncheckable. I think this is bad, you think this is good.
You misconstrue me yet again. I have said that the position we're in now is
preferable
to a Supreme Court with the "fixes" you ask of.
Judicial review is a Good Thing™, especially when it isn't abused. For the most part, it hasn't been, as the Supreme Court is limited in its original jurisdiction, and that would be the primary way to go about abusing the power of judicial review. I also certainly agree that the status needs to change, but I am unsure of how best to go about doing so without a loss of power in the judicial branch.
Also: Way to change the topic right out from under me; for whatever reason, you decided not to reply to the other post.
Sorry. Life at the moment calls for brevity. Were you refering to NAMBLA? It is just an extreme case of people demanding that their rights are inaliable, no matter what they do.
On the main topic of judicial review, where I want to focus:
You said "when it isn't abused" in reference to when it is a good thing. I wonder with how many cases, and how many times of using judicial review you are aware of?
Post by
135207
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.