• 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!

Shouldn't supreme court justices be held to some sort of ethical standard?

Um, case law comes in the form of a written decision.

You've really not through this all through.
No, you are conflating a court decision with legislation. There is a difference.
 
No, you are conflating a court decision with legislation. There is a difference.
No, I'm not. Case law is binding law, and the decisions that make up case law are written documents.

Emphasis added:
The Judiciary: Courts and Case Law
Judicial decisions constitute one of the most important sources of legal authority, along with legislative and regulatory enactments, in our common law system. Even statutes must be read in conjunction with case law which construe the correct application of the legislation. Courts follow the doctrine of precedent, or stare decisis ("let the decision stand"), to create and build upon holdings of law so as to ensure that people in like circumstances of fact are treated alike.

Published court reports provide a permanent record of judicial opinions and provide an easily cited source. The U.S. Department of the Interior Library provides access to judicial decisions by means of a variety of print and electronic search tools. LEXIS and Westlaw are available for departmental research; the Internet provides access to many sources for free. Consult with a Reference Librarian for assistance in locating case law. The text below describes the structure of the American judiciary and its publications.
Source: https://www.doi.gov/library/collect...one of,correct application of the legislation.
 
Laugh all you like, it won't change the fact that RvW never was a law. Feel free to present any evidence to the contrary.

Prediction: you will refuse to and then try to demand that I show proof that it is not a law, despite you having made the initial assertion, thus placing the responsibility on you, as well as your assertion is a positive while mine is a negative, and one can't prove a negative, thus placing further responsibility on you to support your point. But as I said you won't do it.
 
At the moment the pregnant woman and the doctor make that decision. Abortion is no longer a legal issue.

You didn't answer my question. Does New Zealand not have a Supreme Court?

In its latest abortion-related decision, the Supreme Court did exactly the opposite of what you claimed. They decided that it is NOT up to the Supreme Court whether abortion should be legal or not.
 
I have made no such assertion, ever.


Does it trouble you NZ has abortion restrictions that are more restrictive than Roe was?
You did not assert that but what you did assert that abortion was done without consideration implied as such.

No, it troubles me that you are trying to pretend that it is when you really have no basis for such a claim.
 
You didn't answer my question. Does New Zealand not have a Supreme Court?

In its latest abortion-related decision, the Supreme Court did exactly the opposite of what you claimed. They decided that it is NOT up to the Supreme Court whether abortion should be legal or not.
You asked me who decides and I answered that. Now you are asking me what role does the supreme court play in new zealand. Yes we have a supreme court. They interpret the law not create or unmake the law.

If it were that simple then there would be no fuss. But instead the decision has had many ramifications. Their decision is very questionable. The very idea that nine people can decide to remove a law is ridiculous. Pretending it is abdicating from their responsibility is not much better.
 
You asked me who decides and I answered that.

The issue raised by your comment was who decides what the law is: "nine people decide for all america what their laws will be." Your words. Not who decides who gets an abortion.

Now you are asking me what role does the supreme court play in new zealand. Yes we have a supreme court. They interpret the law not create or unmake the law.

So you agree with this Supreme Court, that the Supreme court should not make laws like they did with Roe?

If it were that simple then there would be no fuss. But instead the decision has had many ramifications. Their decision is very questionable. The very idea that nine people can decide to remove a law is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous about 9 people deciding to "remove a law" that 9 other people in the same position completely made up 50 years earlier?
 
The issue raised by your comment was who decides what the law is: "nine people decide for all america what their laws will be." Your words. Not who decides who gets an abortion.
Not sure the distinction you are trying to make when america uses laws to decide who can have an abortion.
So you agree with this Supreme Court, that the Supreme court should not make laws like they did with Roe?
That is stretching it somewhat. I answered your question and told you why it is different. I disagree that the supreme court of america should be the ones who make the decision that effect millions of women and men without any apparent consultation.
What's ridiculous about 9 people deciding to "remove a law" that 9 other people in the same position completely made up 50 years earlier?
Why america feels the need to have a law about abortion is ridiculous in itself. It is a medical concern not a legal one. That america is using abortion to gain political favour by creating uncertainty about rights should be considered ridiculous.
 
Not sure the distinction you are trying to make when america uses laws to decide who can have an abortion.

The distinction is simple. You were complaining about the court making laws, and when I asked you how that's done in New Zealand, you changed the topic to who gets to decide who has abortions.

That is stretching it somewhat. I answered your question and told you why it is different. I disagree that the supreme court of america should be the ones who make the decision that effect millions of women and men without any apparent consultation.

How is stretching it? The only source of a national law protecting the right to abortion in the US for the past 50 years was a decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. This is directly contrary to what you implied should be the case in your initial comment.

Why america feels the need to have a law about abortion is ridiculous in itself. It is a medical concern not a legal one. That america is using abortion to gain political favour by creating uncertainty about rights should be considered ridiculous.

Practically every industrialized nation in the world has laws about abortion, and the ones that aren't industrialized tend to have even stricter laws.
 
The distinction is simple. You were complaining about the court making laws, and when I asked you how that's done in New Zealand, you changed the topic to who gets to decide who has abortions.
I believe I have answered both questions. Who gets to decide and what powers the courts in nz have. And no I was not complaining about your supreme court making laws. I was pointing out that having nine people decide what is a law is ridiculous.

How is stretching it? The only source of a national law protecting the right to abortion in the US for the past 50 years was a decision of the US Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. This is directly contrary to what you implied should be the case in your initial comment.
My initial comment only asked why such decisions are left to nine people.


Practically every industrialized nation in the world has laws about abortion, and the ones that aren't industrialized tend to have even stricter laws.
So that patriotic urge to make america great again is achieved by setting the bar real low.
 
And no I was not complaining about your supreme court making laws. I was pointing out that having nine people decide what is a law is ridiculous.

This is the same thing. So back at you. What's the difference?

My initial comment only asked why such decisions are left to nine people.

They aren't. Those nine people interpret the law, they don't make it. The current court just fixed that.

So that patriotic urge to make america great again is achieved by setting the bar real low.

One thing that's great about American is that our system mostly allows the people in each state to decide what their laws should be through a process called "democracy," and if someone doesn't like the laws in the state where they live they can easily move to another state with laws they like better.
 
This is the same thing. So back at you. What's the difference?
I am not sure what you mean then because nz does not have nine people or even a supreme court making decisions about whether a law is legal or not.


They aren't. Those nine people interpret the law, they don't make it. The current court just fixed that.
Again if it was that simple then there would not be such contention. Nor is my point about which way nine people decided. it is that nine people are making a decision for everyone.

One thing that's great about American is that our system mostly allows the people in each state to decide what their laws should be through a process called "democracy," and if someone doesn't like the laws in the state where they live they can easily move to another state with laws they like better.
You do realise that in a democracy that is a two edged sword. In that if someone does not like a law they are free to start petitioning for change.

So you have no problem that the supreme court can flip flop every 50 years or so on the issue of roe v wade but if the states pass a law banning abortion then that is fixed and if someone does not like it that someone can just leave.
 
I am not sure what you mean then because nz does not have nine people or even a supreme court making decisions about whether a law is legal or not.



Again if it was that simple then there would not be such contention. Nor is my point about which way nine people decided. it is that nine people are making a decision for everyone.

How many people do you think should interpret our laws in civil disputes? Who does that in NZ?

You do realise that in a democracy that is a two edged sword. In that if someone does not like a law they are free to start petitioning for change.

So you have no problem that the supreme court can flip flop every 50 years or so on the issue of roe v wade but if the states pass a law banning abortion then that is fixed and if someone does not like it that someone can just leave.

I said they can, not that they have to. They can also stay and petition for change. Or the can leave AND still petition for change.

Isn't it great to have options?
 
You did not assert that but what you did assert that abortion was done without consideration implied as such.
Nope, never.

No, it troubles me that you are trying to pretend that it is when you really have no basis for such a claim.
I believe I read that abortion restrictions in NZ begin at 20 weeks, almost a month earlier than the Roe standard of 23/24 weeks. Is that correct?
 
Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett lack the ethical standard to be on the supreme court. When you look at the history of Supreme Court justices, they clearly have breached this standard.

I am not even talking about the justices that perjured themselves.
Thomas should never have been seated to begin with. He was unfit 30 years ago, when he squeaked by with a vote 52-48, and he’s no more fit to be on the highest court today.

And Coney-Barrett wouldn’t be an Associate Justice today if not for McConnell’s blatantly hypocritical actions.
 
Laugh all you like, it won't change the fact that RvW never was a law. Feel free to present any evidence to the contrary.

Prediction: you will refuse to and then try to demand that I show proof that it is not a law, despite you having made the initial assertion, thus placing the responsibility on you, as well as your assertion is a positive while mine is a negative, and one can't prove a negative, thus placing further responsibility on you to support your point. But as I said you won't do it.
Whatever. Unlike you I never demand anything of other posters.
 
How many people do you think should interpret our laws in civil disputes? Who does that in NZ?



I said they can, not that they have to. They can also stay and petition for change. Or the can leave AND still petition for change.

Isn't it great to have options?
It is not how many that is the issue. It is who is deciding that is the issue. In nz those we elect to government decide what the laws are.

It is if one spells out what those options are not just list one option that you would prefer.
 
It is not how many that is the issue. It is who is deciding that is the issue. In nz those we elect to government decide what the laws are.

It is if one spells out what those options are not just list one option that you would prefer.
For the last half century abortion law had been written by the courts. It's now been returned to those "we elect to government."

So what exactly is your issue with today's SCOTUS?
 
Nope, never.


I believe I read that abortion restrictions in NZ begin at 20 weeks, almost a month earlier than the Roe standard of 23/24 weeks. Is that correct?
Then you really need to think about how you use your words. Because no other inference can be made from that statement.

Yes you are correct.
 
Then you really need to think about how you use your words. Because no other inference can be made from that statement.

Yes you are correct.
Be precise. Quote words the I said from which your mistaken inference is all that could reasonably be drawn.
 
For the last half century abortion law had been written by the courts. It's now been returned to those "we elect to government."

So what exactly is your issue with today's SCOTUS?
Who are not even bothering to ask what people want.

That your system is corrupt.
 
Be precise. Quote words the I said from which your mistaken inference is all that could reasonably be drawn.
Post 72.
It asserts, without benefit of reasoning, that fetal life can never be of any concern.
Your assuming that women do not have good reasons for having an abortion. Or even that fetus was of no concern to a woman.
 
Are you aware that the US Constitution also limits the judiciary to interpreting laws? (Not that our friends on the left seem to have any awareness of this, granted.)
Ok, so liberals pass a full, blanket gun ban. All firearms, all confiscated.

SCOTUS just interprets what that law says, right? Since they have no authority to overturn it.
 
This is the same thing. So back at you. What's the difference?



They aren't. Those nine people interpret the law, they don't make it. The current court just fixed that.



One thing that's great about American is that our system mostly allows the people in each state to decide what their laws should be through a process called "democracy," and if someone doesn't like the laws in the state where they live they can easily move to another state with laws they like better.
I think the people in each state should decide if they want to ban Christianity.
 
Back
Top Bottom