• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS In Doubt

Has the SCOTUS become a political pawn for activism?


  • Total voters
    75

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
33,000
Reaction score
13,973
Location
FL - Daytona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

 
-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

I think there can be no doubt that this has become an activist court. It's one thing to render predictable right wing decisions that come before you, but it is yet another to completely overlook decades of stare decisis, and overturn what has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. If that isn't activist, I don't know what is.
 
-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

You have to look at the whole picture. Overturning RvW was simply the most egregious. But the whole picture is that the SC is where Democratic policies go to die as a matter of course. You have a few justices who deceived the public about their position on RvW, and one Justice even said that he planned to spend his life on the SC making liberals' lives miserable. And you even have another Justice going to Republican events telling them how to bring cases forward so they can rule for them.

The Supreme Court is no longer a legitimate legal institution. It's now a right wing partisan stamp.
 
I think there can be no doubt that this has become an activist court. It's one thing to render predictable right wing decisions that come before you, but it is yet another to completely overlook decades of stare decisis, and overturn what has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. If that isn't activist, I don't know what is.

Having the majority of our (current) nine robed umpires making the “law of the land” instead of leaving that up to the several states and/or congress is activist.
 
-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?


Try to rap your head around this. The court is ALWAYS loaded. Currently it is loaded with conservatives. If Biden or another Democrat is elected in 2024 the court will probably be loaded with progressives.

The problem IMHO is that we have turned a jaundiced eye toward every element of government we do not agree with that folks decry all of our government institutions.
 
Having the majority of our (current) nine robed umpires making the “law of the land” instead of leaving that up to the several states and/or congress is activist.

Do you feel the same about the supreme court making the "law of the land" about the second amendment?
 
-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

Kommie Harris worried about integrity. Don’t care who you are, that’s just plain old 😆 funny
 
-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --

Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?


Quoting our moron of a VP isn't really going to help anyone's case.

That woman is a jackass.
 
Having the majority of our (current) nine robed umpires making the “law of the land” instead of leaving that up to the several states and/or congress is activist.
That one's been debunked pretty thoroughly now that various republican legislatures are fighting to keep it off the ballot because they know it will lose. They now plan to do it internally without public input.
 
Try to rap your head around this. The court is ALWAYS loaded. Currently it is loaded with conservatives. If Biden or another Democrat is elected in 2024 the court will probably be loaded with progressives.

The problem IMHO is that we have turned a jaundiced eye toward every element of government we do not agree with that folks decry all of our government institutions.

All you need to do is look at the efforts of FDR to pack the court and what drove that.

Even though he failed, time got him what he wanted......

And suddenly, what was unconstitutional was no longer unconstitutional.

Are people really that unaware.
 
All you need to do is look at the efforts of FDR to pack the court and what drove that.

Even though he failed, time got him what he wanted......

And suddenly, what was unconstitutional was no longer unconstitutional.

Are people really that unaware.

Waiting a year to allow a nomination seems appropriate to you? Rushing a nomination through in 30 days seems equally appropriate?
It's evil. Anti-American. Modern Gop.
 
That one's been debunked pretty thoroughly now that various republican legislatures are fighting to keep it off the ballot because they know it will lose. They now plan to do it internally without public input.

Nonsense - you simply liked the RvW law making decision by the SCOTUS.
 
Do you feel the same about the supreme court making the "law of the land" about the second amendment?

This is the irony of incorporation.

In the truest sense, the federal government can make gun control laws from a federal perspective. How those might divide out is something that seems a bit complex to me.

At the same time, the states expected that they would not be regulating everything. 44 of the 50 states have 2A language in their individual constitutions.

Now, how the supremacy clause would factor into such a legal battle is above my paygrade.

But, to your point, I believe there is some room at the federal level for the government to exercise some form of gun control. And the SCOTUS should hold it up.....as long as it fits the constitutional model (and as I said....I don't have that clear in my mind).
 
Waiting a year to allow a nomination seems appropriate to you? Rushing a nomination through in 30 days seems equally appropriate?
It's evil. Anti-American. Modern Gop.

Nope, that is simply partisan politics within the US Senate.
 
Last edited:
-- Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday said the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade has made her worried about the "integrity" of the Supreme Court.

"I think this is an activist court," Harris said in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press." --


Does overturning a popular landmark decision mean we lose faith in this Constitutional body or do we accept that they may make decisions we don't agree with overall, and wait till the justices eventually lean the other way?

Translation "waa boo hoo the supreme court made a decision I don't like".
 
That one's been debunked pretty thoroughly now that various republican legislatures are fighting to keep it off the ballot because they know it will lose. They now plan to do it internally without public input.

Which they will also lose.

And has been the point from the start.

Overturning RvW is going to have little impact.

But it rectified a constitutional blunder by the SCOTUS.
 
Back
Top Bottom