Confidence in SCOTUS

[highroller]

They ruled against the stupidity and dangerous Independent legislature theory, so they get a low confidence ore from me

 

[anatta]

We have turned the SCOTUS into politicians in black robes that use the law as a shield to drive a political agenda. Our system of law is suppose to respect (no, revere) precedent. When judges feel that precedent no longer matters (nor does in matter that there is actual live, aggrieved plaintiff), our legal system becomes a mockery .... its just another branch of policy makers.

We do need to expand this court to about 15 judges.

you aren't even differentiating between stare decisis- the doctrine that a court must strictly follow the decisions handed down by higher courts within the same jurisdiction
and precedent., ,Neither bid SCOTUS

 

[Captain Adverse]

Which recent ruling went against the will of the majority of the country? And you do realize that the will of the majority of the country has nothing to do with the Constitution, right?

I am not surprised by the list of members who've voted either "low" or "none." It reads like a "who's who" of every social justice warrior/DEI-ESG supporter/Identity-hierarchy of oppression advocate in the Forum whose fervent wish is to turn our government into a socialist one-party ruled State by any means necessary.

Of course they have little to no confidence in SCOTUS as long as it doesn't adhere to their ideological goals. Which is why these same members advocate for adding more members so that the Democrat Party can pack the court with an unstoppable majority and turn our nation into a permanent socialist nightmare.

I remain happy with a SCOTUS that adheres to it's primary duty of interpreting the law as it applies to preserving the Constitution, the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, and equal justice under the law.

 

[anatta]

Yeah, I get that, Ist, I believe the majority of the country was fine with Roe v Wade and these trump appointed justices promised not to destroy precedent and they did it any way. I'm not a constitutional scholar, as to the constitution and the will of the people (majority could be interpreted as the same) maybe it's time for amendment 28. I simply don't trust the interpretation of these judges. Don't know anyone who does. View attachment 67454969

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25712474

Roe v Wade was based on implied powers. Thats shaky grounds in that the court can always find those power not existent
They are given by or removed by the SCOTUS at will

 

[anatta]

I never thought about confidence in the SCOTUS. But over many decades when it came to guess hoe the SCOTUS would decide a case, I usually guessed wrong. The problem is I read the constitution in plain English that it is written in. Not the Lawyerese the SCOTUS does. I’m more inclined to go with original intent of the framers, not reading things into the constitution that isn’t there.

Does or did this bother me, not really. It is what it is. I’ve probably held many political views that was unconstitutional if it came to that. I do think a lot of the problem is congress who have this habit of writing laws so vague one could drive a locomotive through. But on the whole, I think the SCOTUS has done it’s job. If that means I have confidence in them, so be it. But when it comes to politics, I have very little confidence in anything and or anyone. I’d also say just because the SCOTUS rules against one of your political views doesn’t mean they were wrong.

Original intent IS reading "things not there". it's been replaced by textualism for cons (Scalia). there must be an underlying text to any law

 

[highroller]

Roe v Wade was based on implied powers. Thats shaky grounds in that the court can always find those power not existent
They are given by or removed by the SCOTUS at will

Except by the sworn testimony by these justices in front of Congress. They lied to get their seats. That’s how you destroy confidence in an institution.

 

[anatta]

Except by the sworn testimony by these justices in front of Congress

Baret was yammering about "super-precedent". I assume she meant bedrock cases like Marbury vs. Madison
I would have left Roe v Wade alone, even if it has no Constitutional underpinning except what SCOTUS says it does (implied).

But it was always a house of cards

 

[Overitall]

I am not surprised by the list of members who've voted either "low" or "none." It reads like a "who's who" of every social justice warrior/DEI-ESG supporter/Identity-hierarchy of oppression advocate in the Forum whose fervent wish is to turn our government into a socialist one-party ruled State by any means necessary.

Of course they have little to no confidence in SCOTUS as long as it doesn't adhere to their ideological goals. Which is why these same members advocate for adding more members so that the Democrat Party can pack the court with an unstoppable majority and turn our nation into a permanent socialist nightmare.

I remain happy with a SCOTUS that adheres to it's primary duty of interpreting the law as it applies to preserving the Constitution, the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, and equal justice under the law.

The problem the democrats will have is in holding onto their tryranical form of government. The Crown of England tried and failed. If the pendulum ever swings in favor of the GOP, payback can be a bitch.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Which recent ruling went against the will of the majority of the country? And you do realize that the will of the majority of the country has nothing to do with the Constitution, right?

The main one, the overturning of Roe. That's very obvious and shown to be true in many, many polls.

IMO, all the hyperbole about sending it back to the states was just that, hyperbole. Within days republicans were talking about national bans and then of course the BS ruling that came from the Trump judge in Texas which has been held off by the circuit court. We'll find out next year what the SC wants to do with this.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Except by the sworn testimony by these justices in front of Congress. They lied to get their seats. That’s how you destroy confidence in an institution.

Wrong. They did not lie, they simply stated in varying ways that it was established precedent. However, throughout history "established precedent" has been overturned when a case comes to the bar that challenges the validity of said precedent.

If this were not the case, we would still be living in a society where "separate but equal" was the law.

 

[eohrnberger]

I am not surprised by the list of members who've voted either "low" or "none." It reads like a "who's who" of every social justice warrior/DEI-ESG supporter/Identity-hierarchy of oppression advocate in the Forum whose fervent wish is to turn our government into a socialist one-party ruled State by any means necessary.

Of course they have little to no confidence in SCOTUS as long as it doesn't adhere to their ideological goals. Which is why these same members advocate for adding more members so that the Democrat Party can pack the court with an unstoppable majority and turn our nation into a permanent socialist nightmare.

I remain happy with a SCOTUS that adheres to it's primary duty of interpreting the law as it applies to preserving the Constitution, the ideals of the Declaration of Independence, and equal justice under the law.

The lefties didn't get the rulings they wanted, so immediately SCOTUS is corrupt.

It is in the lefties view that SCOTUS should only rule the way they want, rather than on legal principals and the interpretation of the actual text of the US Constitution.

Legislating from the bench to make tyrannical and compulsory social policies agenda a reality because they are unable to make it through the legislature where it should, more properly, be addressed.

 

[Noodlegawd]

This is complete and utter bullshit.

And there you have it. The fundamental source of all the supposed ills referenced in this thread: The Constitution should be subject to majority will.

 

[Greenbeard]

How much confidence do you have in the current SCOTUS and why?

I'm confident they'll do the bidding of the GOP and their own personal billionaire benefactors.

 

[j brown's body]

The problem the democrats will have is in holding onto their tryranical form of government. The Crown of England tried and failed. If the pendulum ever swings in favor of the GOP, payback can be a bitch.

Ironically, today, it is the Democrats who are in the forefront of ending the wealthy, white, male tyranny that replaced the tyranny of Crown of England.

 

[j brown's body]

One political party controlling one branch of government for over 50 years, as the Republicans have controlled the Supreme Court, can only lead to tyranny, and we see it played out today in their stripping rights from women and gays and depriving blacks a path out of our legacy of racism.

 

[Overitall]

Ironically, today, it is the Democrats who are in the forefront of ending the wealthy white male tyranny that replaced the tranny of Crown of England.

B.S. You should consider a different source to get educated/indoctrinated from.

 

[Fearandloathing]

How confident should you be that 9 in black will replace the roll of the legislative branch? The left got complacent with the SC fast track and skipped the hard legislative work. Obama promised to codify Roe and was elected. Trump promised to nominate conservative justices. He was elected. Roe should have been moot given Obama's first term super majority. Elections have consequences. Correction of decades of judicial legislation from the bench will be Trump's first term legacy.A president Trump and the Dodd decision is Obama's.

Nice!

Take the entire push back against abortion and lay it on Obama!

You could be a Trump attorney.


Pssst.

"Backward" countries have passed you.

 

[Overitall]

Wrong. They did not lie, they simply stated in varying ways that it was established precedent. However, throughout history "established precedent" has been overturned when a case comes to the bar that challenges the validity of said precedent.

If this were not the case, we would still be living in a society where "separate but equal" was the law.

How easily they forget. Or perhaps actual history is no longer being taught in colleges

 

[Fearandloathing]

I'd be happy with equal representation in the Supreme Court instead of 6-3. And I'm not progressive.

You mean male/female of course.

 

[Hamish Howl]

And there you have it. The fundamental source of all the supposed ills referenced in this thread: The Constitution should be subject to majority will.

Instead of bizarre right wing dominionists who want to make sure that the fewest possible number of people can enjoy American freedoms?

 

[Fearandloathing]

I believe this scotus will continue to destroy the will of the majority of this country until they have succeeded in stripping away every civil liberty and right we have enjoyed as a nation for over 50 years.

Here's what I don't get.

These are supposedly wise and thoughtful people.

Caught in a perceived misstep, the wise course of action is to note it, call it an error and move on. Everyone makes mistakes.

But these wise be-robed scholars of law, arrogantly brush it aside.

So, as it a good idea to give them lifetime appointments. Should they have to re-qualify at some point? We al have torenew driver's licenses, why not the most important lawyers in the land?

 

[Jessie C]

You mean male/female of course.

That too would be nice....but no.

 

[Ginger Ale]

And there you have it. The fundamental source of all the supposed ills referenced in this thread: The Constitution should be subject to majority will.

You might have confidence in a Supreme Court that has already overruled two long standing precedents in the short time they've been there but I don't know many who would. Especially when they claimed they would not. When a new court majority starts ticking the boxes of extreme right activists its concerning because that's not their job.

 

[Fearandloathing]

Which recent ruling went against the will of the majority of the country? And you do realize that the will of the majority of the country has nothing to do with the Constitution, right?

Why your country is broken.

 

[Jessie C]

Here's what I don't get.

These are supposedly wise and thoughtful people.

Caught in a perceived misstep, the wise course of action is to note it, call it an error and move on. Everyone makes mistakes.

But these wise be-robed scholars of law, arrogantly brush it aside.

So, as it a good idea to give them lifetime appointments. Should they have to re-qualify at some point? We al have torenew driver's licenses, why not the most important lawyers in the land?

Lifetime appointments are BAD. Period. I believe term limits should be set for congress, the senate, and the SCOTUS. We need a flow of fresh blood to keep up with the evolving times and issues. Not a bunch of very old, very rich, very greedy people who refuse to move on.