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

[rahl]

Well, your way has us $29 trillion in debt and on pace for $50 trillion in 4 years.

no it hasn't, and no it won't.

Medicare will be insolvent in 4 years, neverminding that it is unconstitutional to begin with.

it will not be insolvent in 4 years nor is it unconstitutional.

Social Security is unconstitutional, Obamacare is unconstitutional, all Federal Education spending is unconstitutional, foreign aide is unconstitutional. On and on...

lol

And I'm certainly not alone in that assessment

yes, you most certainly are.

- I'm in agreement with our Founding Fathers and all of the Supreme Court rulings prior to 1936.

no you aren't.

The corruption of our courts and perversion of the rule of law goes back decades, and it certainly is no accident.

Your freedom and country are being stolen from you - you need to wake up.

You have more freedoms today than you did 30 years ago.

 

[mrjurrs]

Where in the Constitution is Medicare or education??

Don't know?? Didn't think so

My point exactly. They are not in the US Constitution, but they are both clearly constitutional.

 

[wist43]

My point exactly. They are not in the US Constitution, but they are both clearly constitutional.

Oy vey, if they're not authorized by the Constitution, then by definition they are unconstitutional.

You guys are amazing. It's like trying to reason with a 2 year old.

 

[TurtleDude]

Let's discuss
Voter Suppression...

could fit democrat gun control schemes as well. Or free speech restrictions

 

[TurtleDude]

My point exactly. They are not in the US Constitution, but they are both clearly constitutional.

only because dishonest justices, beholden to FDR, ignored both the language and the intent of the constitution (commerce clause) and rejected 100+ years of precedent

 

[NWRatCon]

You guys are amazing.

Yes, yes we are.

It's like trying to reason with a 2 year old.

Clearly you need to up your standards, since your reasoning fails to meet that threshold.

 

[mrjurrs]

Oy vey, if they're not authorized by the Constitution, then by definition they are unconstitutional.

You guys are amazing. It's like trying to reason with a 2 year old.

You are spectacularly uninformed. Source your definition of unconstitutional.

 

[Fishking]

Oh come on. Compare Plessey with Brown on integration. The Supremes are affected by the times, albeit necessarily less so than the other two branches.

I never said it wasn't effected by it. I said they aren't supposed to be. It's specifically not their job. They are to not have a care for what people think or believe in any particular point in modern times. That's the legislature's job.

 

[Fishking]

My point exactly. They are not in the US Constitution, but they are both clearly constitutional.

Uhh....that's not how the Constitution works. If it's not in there then it's something the states do, per the 10A. The federal government only has the authority to do the very specific things granted to them in via what is call the innumerated powers.

 

[wist43]

You are spectacularly uninformed. Source your definition of unconstitutional.

James Madison, aka The Father of our Constitution.

 

[mrjurrs]

James Madison, aka The Father of our Constitution.

You're going to need to do better than that, or just admit you don't understand the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional.

 

[American]

Everything righties accuse others of doing, they do or enable themselves. Everything.

 

[Phys251]

Truth hurts, I know.

 

[American]

It is utter bullshit intended for morons who can not think for themselves. If the original intent would be clear no interpretation would be necessary and as such what oany justice can do is render an opinion. You may need to look up the definition of the word and have it explained to you.

Judging according to original intent means reviewing the debates during the conventions, and interpreting according to the meaning by which is was passed.

"On every question of construction carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:449

 

[Jredbaron96]

Judging according to original intent means reviewing the debates during the conventions, and interpreting according to the meaning by which is was passed.

Which ultimately means cherry picking whichever statements back up what the right wing wants.

Originalism is nothing but judicial activism from the conservative side.

 

[wist43]

You're going to need to do better than that, or just admit you don't understand the difference between constitutional and unconstitutional.

Lol... I'm referencing the man who wrote the document and defined its meaning, and you think that carries no weight??

You guys are beyond dishonest.

 

[mrjurrs]

Lol... I'm referencing the man who wrote the document and defined its meaning, and you think that carries no weight??

You guys are beyond dishonest.

No I think you don't understand what he says about the Constitution. Your inability to define the difference makes me see your posts for what they are, troll bait. When you have a better understanding of what Constitutional means, come on back.

 

[prometeus]

Judging according to original intent means reviewing the debates during the conventions, and interpreting according to the meaning by which is was passed.

Yea, especially on subjects or issues that were not even possible to envion eh?
Bottom line is that the court renders opinions based on their understanding of the underlying principles and at times you like them and cal them "originalist" and at times you do not and call it something else. The court while never perfect, because it is made up of mortal fallible humans, with their own understandings and biases is the best thing we got. The justices sitting on the court are there with the advice and consent of the people through their Senators, political gamesmanship notwithstanding, and we have no other choice but to comply with their decisions whether we like them or not.
When we will be ready to remove the political biases from the court, we will change the way the court is made up and how it functions.

 

[prometeus]

Oy vey, if they're not authorized by the Constitution, then by definition they are unconstitutional.

You guys are amazing. It's like trying to reason with a 2 year old.

2 year olds like you have zero understanding of the constitution.

 

[NWRatCon]

Ove the last couple of days I was driving through commercial ranching country. Y'all know what that smells like, I expect. Well, this thread reeks worse than that. There is a lot of bandying about words that are clearly not understood by the speakers - like "constitutional" and "original intent". I'm particularly amused by the effort to one-up the thread by simply invoking Madison's name, as if it is some talisman that will ward off illogic and vacuity (and inaccuracy) of the claim. (It's actually a logical fallacy in rhetoric, but I wouldn't expect the invoker to appreciate that.)

The thread has deviated significantly from the OP ("which I wrote", see "Washington On Your Side". Hamilton). The original premise 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." I've been wondering for some time if some of these errant posters might address that hypothesis....

In the interim - since the thread was started - the situation has actually gotten worse. Consider the shadow docket decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson as a prime example. The Supreme Court doesn’t just abuse its shadow docket. It does so inconsistently. (WaPo, Opinion - Steve Vladeck, Subscription). "As (Justice) Kagan put it, the majority decision “is emblematic of too much of this Court’s shadow-docket decisionmaking — which every day becomes more unreasoned, inconsistent, and impossible to defend.” Although her critique is more technical and nuanced than those of the other three dissenting justices, it also gets to the two most important reasons the court’s refusal to intervene in the Texas case is so difficult to defend: It used an unsigned and barely explained order to short-circuit the constitutional rights of millions of Texas women; and its nonintervention over abortion differed blatantly from its aggressive interventions in the past year in religious liberty cases." Now, there's something "on topic:"

 

[NWRatCon]

"During the Trump administration, for instance, the justices issued 28 orders at the request of the administration that blocked adverse lower-court rulings while the government appealed. This had the effect of allowing the government to enforce policies that had been invalidated by every other court ruling on their legality. In contrast, the Supreme Court issued only four such orders during the 16 years spanning the presidencies of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama." The Supreme Court doesn’t just abuse its shadow docket. It does so inconsistently. (WaPo, Opinion - Steve Vladeck, Subscription) "Since Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the court in October, the justices have issued seven emergency injunctions to block state coronavirus restrictions, compared with a total of four injunctions directly blocking state laws issued by the court during the first 15 years of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s tenure."

If it were not the Supreme Court itself doing this, that would normally be described as "abuse of process". ("(1) the existence of an ulterior purpose or motive underlying the use of process, and (2) some act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular prosecution of the proceedings") It seems to be a technique adopted directly from Donald Trump, himself, who is well known for it.

Pretending that the current SC majority is merely "following the Constitution" is beyond ridiculous. They have an agenda, that is not constitutionally but politically based, and they are determined to bend the law to that purpose. It's obvious to any rational outside observer. If it were not for the fact that these actions are consonant with the wishes of many of these posters, they would object - but they won't, because their posts are themselves devoid of any principled basis in the law or the Constitution - just like the Supreme Court's actions.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

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.

No, I don't think the Constitution as we know it will survive.
In fact, it's even likely that we will live to see a "Constitutional convention" in which this original founding document hits the shredder and is entirely wiped out, with the blessing of the Trump supermajority.
And guess who will hold the pen at this convention: The wealthiest oligarchs and their corporations.
I don't CARE what the Constitution SAYS is empowered to "hold the pen" because I am saying that, IN REALITY, it WILL be WRITTEN BY the wealthiest 0.0005% and ONLY by them.

And it won't even remotely resemble what we originally had in mind for a free country.
It will look and sound like a feudal manifesto tied to extreme white hyper-nationalism and supremacy, and it will pay homage to theocracy and fiscal anarchy.
And it will enshrine dictatorial power of the landed gentry and the weight of the words of a man instead of respect for the rule of law.

It will be the utmost in technocratic authoritarian psychobabble and it will read like authentic frontier gibberish to any trained legal mind.
But none of that will matter because at its core, it will say something along the lines of:

"Hulk like strongman, strongman say law is whatever strongman say it is.
Hulk smash anyone who say no."

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Let's discuss
Voter Suppression...

BOILED FROGS

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Cultist Gotta Cult... and,,,
Christian Gotta Chris...
Poor unbelievably lost and dumb mother****ers...
Peace (s) of shit

The U.S. Supreme Court decides the landmark Dred Scott v. Sandford case. ...
Ten years later,

• the U.S. Supreme Court holds that slaves are property and have no right to sue.

The Court says that people of African ancestry can never become U.S. citizens.

*********

***********​

I cannot think of a single democratic western republic that appoints judges for LIFE the way our SCOTUS does.

 

[wist43]

No I think you don't understand what he says about the Constitution. Your inability to define the difference makes me see your posts for what they are, troll bait. When you have a better understanding of what Constitutional means, come on back.

James Madison Refutes Expansive Reading of the General Welfare Clause | Tenth Amendment Center

His speech is a stinging refutation to all those who claim the clause empowers the federal government to spend money for anything and everything

tenthamendmentcenter.com

I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the constitution conceived; it is still more fully known, and more material to observe, those who ratified the constitution conceived, that this is not an indefinite government deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers—but, a limited government tied down to the specified powers, which explain and define the general terms...

There are consequences, sir, still more extensive which as they follow clearly from the doctrine combated, must either be admitted, or the doctrine must be given up. If Congress can apply money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the union; they may assume the provision for the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation, down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress; for every object I have mentioned would admit the application of money, and might be called, if Congress pleased, provisions for the general welfare

- James Madison, 1792

----------------------------

You leftists clearly have no idea what you're talking about.