Is the Constitution strong enough to survive the current Supreme Court?

[the Avatar]

Corporations are owned by individuals. Are you seriously asserting that individuals lose their right to free speech simply because they became a corporation?

Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) was an excellent decision, upholding the individual right of free speech. Which is why leftists, and only leftists, hate it so much.

One of the mains points of a corporation is that it can act as its own separate legal entity instead of the sum of its owners. Even if a corporation didn't have certain rights, the owners could still exercise all of their rights as citizens outside of the corporation. For example, corporations themselves cannot vote, but shareholders who are citizens still can. Citizens United v FEC is not a case about our individual rights; it's fundamentally about corporate law and in what ways they are or are not included in "We, the People" in terms of election finance.

As for what you said about only leftists hating Citizens United v FEC, did you know that the ACLU supports it? It may be getting a lot of partisan feelings because it seems to help Republicans a lot more than Democrats (source and source).

 

[natman]

History books (assuming we still have them) will call out the Roberts court as the most anti-rights court in American history.

It's already been demonstrated that the cases you cite are not "anti-rights", indeed have little to do with rights at all. In many cases the Roberts court has been actively PRO-rights. For example, DC v Heller:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DC v Heller page 1.

In this case the court affirmed that the Second Amendment, like all the rest of the Bill of Rights, protects an INDIVIDUAL right. It thereby laid to rest the ridiculous notion that somehow the Second Amendment, and only the Second, protected a "collective" right and the erroneous notion that somehow militia service was required. It confirmed that the Bill of Rights is a series of restrictions on the government, not the people.

Sounds very pro-rights to me.

 

[HangLow]

That is only because history books written by leftist filth are completely bereft of facts.

The reality is that you cannot cite a single Supreme Court case in the last 50 years that has been "anti-rights." Just because you don't like the fact that the Supreme Court continually tosses out leftist plans, and for the last 25 years it has only been the left, to subvert the US Constitution does not make them "anti-rights."

You are simply falling into the old leftist habit of calling everyone who disagrees with you a "racist," only this time you call them "anti-rights." When the reality is that you, and your leftist ilk, are the one who are anti-rights here, not the Supreme Court.

​

 

[mrjurrs]

It's already been demonstrated that the cases you cite are not "anti-rights", indeed have little to do with rights at all. In many cases the Roberts court has been actively PRO-rights. For example, DC v Heller:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DC v Heller page 1.

In this case the court affirmed that the Second Amendment, like all the rest of the Bill of Rights, protects an INDIVIDUAL right. It thereby laid to rest the ridiculous notion that somehow the Second Amendment, and only the Second, protected a "collective" right and the erroneous notion that somehow militia service was required. It confirmed that the Bill of Rights is a series of restrictions on the government, not the people.

Sounds very pro-rights to me.

Since only about 1 in 3 Americans own guns, I would say that decision infringes on the rights of the majority of Americans. Your freedom to exercise your right of free speech or religion is very unlikely to kill somebody.

 

[TurtleDude]

Since only about 1 in 3 Americans own guns, I would say that decision infringes on the rights of the majority of Americans. Your freedom to exercise your right of free speech or religion is very unlikely to kill somebody.

owning a gun is no more relevant to killing someone than having a penis means you are raping someone. and far more Americans own firearms than say blacks, gays, lesbians, and other groups that correctly demand that their rights be respected. Your comment is incredibly silly because you are assuming that the second amendment somehow protects the right to murder. Yet countries that have no second amendment-such as Mexico, South Africa etc, have much higher rates of murder

 

[natman]

Since only about 1 in 3 Americans own guns, I would say that decision infringes on the rights of the majority of Americans. Your freedom to exercise your right of free speech or religion is very unlikely to kill somebody.

Thereby proving, as if there was any doubt, that you don't understand how rights work, and your definition of an "anti-rights" decision is one you don't like.

 

[TurtleDude]

Thereby proving, as if there was any doubt, that you don't understand how rights work, and your definition of an "anti-rights" decision is one you don't like.

if we used numbers to justify rights, gay marriage, interracial marriage, and abortion would be SOL.

 

[Lafayette]

WHO SELECTS AND WHO AUTHORIZES PRESIDENT'S NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT?

From off the net here (difficult to give the reference):

Who elects the US Supreme Court? [should read "selects"]

The President

How are Supreme Court Justices selected? The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court.

A Replicant PotUS and Replicant Senate selected/authorized the last three members of the Supreme Court. The consequence of that selection has been some hevaely-disputable decisions made by the majority since then. (Yes, purely IMO!)

The republicans did not pack the court. They merely took advantage of the three vacancies that came up while Trump was president.. Packing the court would have been passing a bill to add more justices then the current nine.

Surely you're joking. Trump clearly packed the SC and that fact is obvious in that the majority today are all Right-wingers.

Who elects the US Supreme Court?

The President

How are Supreme Court Justices selected? The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court.

How much do Supreme Court justices make?

Associate Supreme Court justices earn a salary of $244,400 dollars, while the chief justice earns $255,500, according to the Federal Judicial Center. Many of the judges also hold significant investments that have helped turn most of them into millionaires

Justice in the US is being run by millionaires? Nahhhhhhh - just subtly "influenced" ...

 

[Lafayette]

View attachment 67366386​

Gallup Polls now decide the ability and capacity of members of the Supreme Court? Since when?

The effect of the Richly-Rabid-Right on the selections and naming of Supreme Court justices will hamstring any effort to change some fundamental errors of law in the US. And, of course, if we Yanks keep electing far-Right nerds to the Senate, then the errors will simply multiply.

I do hope that Trump gets his "comeuppance" because the nerd richly deserves it - his life is a never-ending sound of a hollow-drum. Nothing in it worth noticing ...

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Surely you're joking. Trump clearly packed the SC and that fact is obvious in that the majority today are all Right-wingers.

I'll just address this one as the rest is just vapid rant. You clearly do not understand the term "packing the court". trump did not pack the court. he simply nominated justices when vacancies came up and they were confirmed by the Senate. Packing the court would be passing a law to add more justice then the current 9. That is what the democrats have lately been threatening to do. understand now?

 

[Lafayette]

MANUFACTURING OR SERVICES INDUSTRIES?

I'll just address this one as the rest is just vapid rant. You clearly do not understand the term "packing the court". trump did not pack the court. he simply nominated justices when vacancies came up and they were confirmed by the Senate. Packing the court would be passing a law to add more justice then the current 9. That is what the democrats have lately been threatening to do. understand now?

Packing-the-court is exactly what happened - which has delivered the court to the Right-wingers. One Lefty-died and Righties were selected to join.

It's a good move on the part of Biden to reestablish a 50/50 court (if he can do so). But Rabid-Right will make an all-out effort for that not to happen. Politics is never obviously yes OR no - but always a mix of the two. And a country does its best when that rule is observed.

Of course, America could go bonkers and give the presidency back to the Replicants. Then it would be a question of more-of-the-same. What Americans fail to realize is this Central Fact: We have changed economies and the 50/50 division of Manufacturing and Services Industries is long, long gone.

Manufacturing only employs 8% of the total workforce and Services Industries employ all the rest. And that reality is going to decide America's future economic-success. Services Industries employ graduates of a post-secondary skills-formation or education.

Or it will fail ...

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Is the Constitution strong enough to survive the current Supreme Court?

​

Sure, it just won't bear any resemblance to The Constitution we all know and are familiar with.
How well did black folks survive The Emancipation Proclamation?
How well did Jews survive the Enabling Act?

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Packing-the-court is exactly what happened - which has delivered the court to the Right-wingers. One Lefty-died and Righties were selected to join.

You lack the foggiest clue what you are talking about. Using your ignorant logic, every presidential nomination to the court would be court packing. that makes no sense whatsoever. trump merely filled the vacancies as they came up.

It's a good move on the part of Biden to reestablish a 50/50 court (if he can do so). But Rabid-Right will make an all-out effort for that not to happen. Politics is never obviously yes OR no - but always a mix of the two. And a country does its best when that rule is observed.

More ignorance. Biden cannot add more justices without vacancies coming up unless congress were to pass a bill allowing him to do so. And if you were to do the math, it not just republican blocking that from happening. Two democrats have come out against adding to the number of justices. If a vote were to take place today, it would be 48 for and 52 against. And your suggestion of a 50/50 court is hilarious. There are nine justices. It's always going to lean one way or the other.

 

[natman]

Packing-the-court is exactly what happened - which has delivered the court to the Right-wingers. One Lefty-died and Righties were selected to join.

The phrase "packing the court" has a very specific meaning. It means adding more seats on the court so that the current administration can fill the new seats. You may not like how the Trump administration handled Supreme Court vacancies, or the candidates he chose, but he did not add more seats, so he did NOT pack the court.

 

[Lafayette]

I'll just address this one as the rest is just vapid rant. You clearly do not understand the term "packing the court". trump did not pack the court. he simply nominated justices when vacancies came up and they were confirmed by the Senate. Packing the court would be passing a law to add more justice then the current 9. That is what the democrats have lately been threatening to do. understand now?

Yeah, right! Confirmed by a Replicant dominated Senate! Get the facts straight!

Your knowledge of American current-history is deficient - yet another Rightist blind to the factual evidence.

And the joker-PotUS Trump is still free to blather about his own supposed innocence regarding his administration's illegal mistakes.

Time will seal his fate ...

 

[Lafayette]

Fr

Yeah, right! Confirmed by a Replicant dominated Senate! Get the facts straight!

Your knowledge of American current-history is deficient - yet another Rightist blind to the factual evidence.

And the joker-PotUS Trump (who LOST the popular-vote for the presidency but got elected anyway) went free to blather about his own supposed innocence regarding his administration's illegal mistakes.

Time will seal his fate ...

Worth a read from the Washington Post here: Opinion: Trump’s monstrous mistakes — past and future

​

 

[Lafayette]

POST SCRIPTUM

Worth a read from the Washington Post here: Opinion: Trump’s monstrous mistakes — past and future

I have noticed that particularly with the Washington Post when read using the most popular Internet service "Google" the reader is denied access to the above article - and articles of this type. WP proposes an annual subscription fee to read them.

This seems to be a matter of "Google" policy - it is allowing the WP to offer you the online service for a monthly fee. It is the reader who decides whether or not they wish to subscribe to the online news-magazine.

If you want to avoid this "hazard" try to obtain the Internet with another Internet access-program. For example: "Opera". It just might work - but there are no guarantees with Internet manipulations ...

 

[Lafayette]

"PACKING" THE SUPREME COURT?

The phrase "packing the court" has a very specific meaning. It means adding more seats on the court so that the current administration can fill the new seats. You may not like how the Trump administration handled Supreme Court vacancies, or the candidates he chose, but he did not add more seats, so he did NOT pack the court.

No, packing the court simply means that any PotUS to whom the privilege is accorded due to the death of an SC member is allowed to replace them. Donald Trump - soon to be in court to defend himself against serious allegations regarding his conduct as PotUS - nominated three pro-rightists to the court and they will be there for the rest of their natural lives. (Can't find a better job than that, can you!)

Why not have the justices simply retire at the age of 65 and we-the-sheeple get whatever replacement the current PotUS at the time seeks as a candidate? That is, curiously, only accepted if the majority party in the Senate agree! (Wow! Why only the Senate?)

I am not sure why this should remain a "presidential prerogative", particularly in a country where the political decision-making is clearly between only two main parties. We-the-sheeple elect our representatives to Congress, and it is very right that Congress (both parts) should seek replacements to the Supreme Court.

Methinks ...

 

[Lafayette]

It is not the Constitution that should be "strong enough", but the will of the American people.

And, unfortunately, between the days they took Civic-courses in highschool and the current course of governance in the highest offices of the land (Presidential, Congressional and Supreme Court) much has been downhill. (To be polite.)

There is a section of belief in the US that "because we've been a democracy for more than two centuries then we must be doing everything right!" Wrong!

Indeed, we are the oldest democracy in the world. But, even if historically impressive in length of time that does not mean Uncle Sam has done everything right. Because he hasn't!

The dominance of only two-parties, to my mind, has been a serious handicap. It does not allow "new thoughts" that get born at the bottom of the political-pile in a nation to gather steam and lead to serious corrections of basic legal-principles.

No, like all else, the Supreme Court has become not a "neutral entity" of American governance but one dominated by one political-party (that decided it should be that way).

That mentality is just not "good enough" in a world that changes with such rapidity as ours today. Packing the Supreme Court will do no ultimate good because serious changes are necessary now in this Brave New World of ours. Where the economy has had a fundamental change from one evenly based between Manufacturing and Services Industries to one that is hugely only Services in this Brave New World of Ours.

Manufacturing is the home of barely 8% of Total Production in the US and Services are all the rest. Meaning what?

That Uncle Sam must prepare his future by making post-secondary education affordable to the larger part of the population because it is a Highly Educated America that will be running the country's economy.

Manufacturing* has fled the US to places like China and Central South-America, which means our workforce is mostly Services-orientated. Which indicates further that it is of a higher complexity! And thus needs a well-educated workforce ...

*In fact, Americans can be proud of what has happened to Manufacturing because what is left is of a very high technological caliber!

 

[VySky]

I'm not going to provide a lot of background on this one, to keep the discussion as open as possible, but my premise, essentially, is this: the current SC majority is actively hostile to basic tenets of the Constitution, from separation of powers to separation of church and state, including basic civil rights, democratic voting, equality under the law, and so many others. The floor is open.

lol

 

[Lafayette]

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS

It's already been demonstrated that the cases you cite are not "anti-rights", indeed have little to do with rights at all. In many cases the Roberts court has been actively PRO-rights. For example, DC v Heller:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DC v Heller page 1.

Sounds very pro-rights to me.

Not to me it doesn't. When a weapon is not the least bit necessary except for hunting (which is no longer the key sustenance of human beings) then the gun becomes in part a "game".

Apparently arms are not only the most-deadly means of taking life but also a high proportion of suicides. From US Davis Health here:

Facts and Figures

The human toll
There were 39,707 deaths from firearms in the U.S. in 2019. Sixty percent of deaths from firearms in the U.S. are suicides. In 2019, 23,941 people in the U.S. died by firearm suicide.1 Firearms are the means in approximately half of suicides nationwide.
In 2019, 14,861 people in the U.S. died from firearm homicide, accounting for 37% of total deaths from firearms. Firearms were the means for about 75% of homicides in 2018.
The other 3% of firearm deaths are unintentional, undetermined, from legal intervention, or from public mass shootings (0.2% of total firearm deaths).
There are approximately 115,000 non-fatal firearm injuries in the U.S. each year.
The economic cost
The estimated annual cost of gun injury in 2012 exceeded $229 billion—about 1.4% of GDP.

Prevalence of ownership
31% of all households in the U.S. have firearms, and 22% of American adults personally own one or more firearms.
Compared with other countries
The U.S. has relatively low rates of assaultive violence but high firearm mortality rates in comparison with other industrialized nations.

Why do we have speed-limits? Because previously of the high mortality rates of car-driving. Which is why the country introduced limits.

We should do the same for firearm - but that would be extremely difficult because so many exist. Nonetheless, if owning a gun were illegal (as it is now in many European countries) one would see fewer deaths resulting from gun ownership.

When driving in the US demonstrated a high incidence of deaths then speed limits were introduced. We cannot do the same for guns? Probably not - because even if there were a ban many would remain "hidden personally". But isn't that better than doing nothing?

Meaning they would still be available for usage but must be declared to authorities! Still, it's better to ban their use than doing nothing, which at the very least limits their usage as seriously murderous-weapons - a seen here:

Btw, that chart above shows the annual death rate from guns to be around 45K a year ...

 

[cpwill]

I'm not going to provide a lot of background on this one, to keep the discussion as open as possible, but my premise, essentially, is this: the current SC majority is actively hostile to basic tenets of the Constitution, from separation of powers to separation of church and state, including basic civil rights, democratic voting, equality under the law, and so many others. The floor is open.

Rejection of the Premise. Though the current SC maintains precedent that is antithetical to the intent of the Constitution (see: Wickard v Filburn, et. al.), it is not actively hostile to it.

The Constitution has survived far worse courts than this (see: Dredd Scott v Standford). Our threat today comes less from an activist judiciary than it does from paranoid partisans deciding they have to tip the boat over Because The Other Side Is Just So Evil.

 

[cpwill]

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Have Laid the Groundwork for the Devastation to Come (Dahlia Lithwick, Slate)​

In many ways the 2020 term at the Supreme Court followed the progression of the coronavirus. There were different phases and stages, distinct strains and variants; there was death and grief and new life and rebirth. And through it all there was gaslighting and denial. Until about a week ago, we heard a lot of media stories of a confounding and unpredictable court, with improbable lineups and unlikely bedfellows. And sure, there has been a lot of that. But Thursday saw a change in narrative with the thunking down of two cases that seemed to poke at the very fabric of democracy; a one-two punch that took aim at Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the ability to challenge election laws that burden racial minorities, and seemingly opened the floodgate to unaccountable and untraceable dark money flooding into a system that is already drowning in it. It almost defies comprehension that a Supreme Court that devoted so much energy, all year long, to appearing removed from partisan politics, chose the very last day of the term to let us know that when the rubber hits the road, partisan politics is what matters.
....
Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and sometimes Gorsuch play the long game. They may each serve on the bench for decades to come. This term, they began to set the table. But apart from Brnovich, the cases were appetizers. The main course will arrive in the coming years. It was always silly to expect a monumental shift during Barrett’s first eight months on the bench. She may well hold this seat well into the 2050s. And by going big in cases that undermine democracy, she and her conservative colleagues have bought themselves more time to dismantle the other remnants of progressive jurisprudence.

This argument appears to begin with a hysterical, tribal, premise, and move backwards from there. Barret is, if anything, one of the three Insitutionalists on the SC, vice one of the ideological conservatives, and neither faction is actively hostile to representative government or voting rights.

 

[natman]

"PACKING" THE SUPREME COURT?



No, packing the court simply means that any PotUS to whom the privilege is accorded due to the death of an SC member is allowed to replace them.

Definition of PACK THE COURT

to increase the number of justices on a court and especially the United States Supreme Court causing the ideological makeup of the Court to shift… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

FDR announces “court-packing” plan

On February 5, 1937, President Franklin Roosevelt announces a plan to expand the Supreme Court to as many as 15 judges, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics immediately charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and thus neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his New...

www.history.com

 

[natman]

It's already been demonstrated that the cases you cite are not "anti-rights", indeed have little to do with rights at all. In many cases the Roberts court has been actively PRO-rights. For example, DC v Heller:

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
DC v Heller page 1.

In this case the court affirmed that the Second Amendment, like all the rest of the Bill of Rights, protects an INDIVIDUAL right. It thereby laid to rest the ridiculous notion that somehow the Second Amendment, and only the Second, protected a "collective" right and the erroneous notion that somehow militia service was required. It confirmed that the Bill of Rights is a series of restrictions on the government, not the people.

Sounds very pro-rights to me.

GUNS, GUNS, GUNS



Not to me it doesn't. When a weapon is not the least bit necessary except for hunting (which is no longer the key sustenance of human beings) then the gun becomes in part a "game".

Apparently arms are not only the most-deadly means of taking life but also a high proportion of suicides. From US Davis Health here:

[long anti-gun rant snipped]

You don't seem to understand how rights work. DC v Heller was a strong pro-rights decision. You may not like the result, but that doesn't change that it was an affirmation of constitutional rights.

By the same token, if SCOTUS affirms free speech, it's a pro-rights decision, regardless of whether you agree with the speaker or not.