OC for ME
Regular Member
Hmm...
Poor pitiful me perhaps?
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
The political wars damage public perception of SCOTUS, Chief Justice Roberts says
- Thread starter OC for ME
- Start date
Poor pitiful me perhaps?
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
If the shoe fits, wear it. You boys and girls have been legislating from the bench for years. And you Mr. Roberts, Obama Care is a tax, give me a break.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
That was the first thought that jumped into my head.
DeSchaine
Regular Member
My first words to him would be "Yes, that's right. So stop being political and do your damn job properly."
davidmcbeth
Banned
"Not interested in opinions, just facts ma'ma." Sgt. Joe Friday
user
Accomplished Advocate
I'd say there are some decisions the Court's made that have already done that. Starting with Marbury v. Madison, and there's Wickard v. Filburn, Oh, and we mustn't forget Castleman...
utbagpiper
Banned
Yes, the highly political confirmation process is hurting the image of the court. But what caused the highly political confirmation process except the highly political decisions the court has been issuing?
Most of these have resulted in a left-wing remaking of our society, and most of them should not have even been decided by federal courts. Those that are not left wing tend to result in growth of government power.
This probably got a serious start when FDR threatened to stack the court and suddenly his New Deal programs started getting ruled constitutional rather than over-turned.
The court has been allowed to become overly political because neither of the other branches, nor the States, have been willing to stand up and exercise their co-equal power when decisions go too far. The Supreme Court is supposed to be supreme only relative to all other courts. It is supposed to be co-equal to congress and the executive. And that doesn't mean that ConAmds are the only constitutional way to correct obviously bad decisions.
The most straightforward thing we could do to fix the court would be to remove the lifetime tenure and instead appoint for a fixed time period, long enough to insulate from short term trends, but short enough that nobody gets to act a king. Maybe 10 years or so, staggered so that ever term a president is going to appoint a couple of justices. That would also help eliminate the trend of appointing young, unproven candidates with no record who will then carry on a legacy for many decades.
Really, though, congress, the president, and the States need to stand up and limit judicial power from time to time. The court doesn't actually have any enforcement mechanism and just as FDR did with German spies during WWII, the other branches should sometimes make clear that some decisions simply will not be respected nor obeyed.
Charles
Most of these have resulted in a left-wing remaking of our society, and most of them should not have even been decided by federal courts. Those that are not left wing tend to result in growth of government power.
This probably got a serious start when FDR threatened to stack the court and suddenly his New Deal programs started getting ruled constitutional rather than over-turned.
The court has been allowed to become overly political because neither of the other branches, nor the States, have been willing to stand up and exercise their co-equal power when decisions go too far. The Supreme Court is supposed to be supreme only relative to all other courts. It is supposed to be co-equal to congress and the executive. And that doesn't mean that ConAmds are the only constitutional way to correct obviously bad decisions.
The most straightforward thing we could do to fix the court would be to remove the lifetime tenure and instead appoint for a fixed time period, long enough to insulate from short term trends, but short enough that nobody gets to act a king. Maybe 10 years or so, staggered so that ever term a president is going to appoint a couple of justices. That would also help eliminate the trend of appointing young, unproven candidates with no record who will then carry on a legacy for many decades.
Really, though, congress, the president, and the States need to stand up and limit judicial power from time to time. The court doesn't actually have any enforcement mechanism and just as FDR did with German spies during WWII, the other branches should sometimes make clear that some decisions simply will not be respected nor obeyed.
Charles
OC for ME
Regular Member
Citing common law to substantiate the court's decisions, ignoring common law when common law clearly disagrees with the court's decision. Terry v. Ohio, Heien, Kelo, SCOTUSCare...the court is solely responsible for its public perception.
http://www.justiceatstake.org/federal/federal_resources/the-founders-and-our-courts/
Stare decisis...pfft.
Wickard v. Filburn should have been overturned long long ago.
http://www.justiceatstake.org/federal/federal_resources/the-founders-and-our-courts/
Stare decisis...pfft.
Wickard v. Filburn should have been overturned long long ago.
