The Biggest Issue We Face as a Country is....

[Obscurity]

....Judicial review. The SCOTUS was -never- meant to be the absurd power house that it is, usurping the power of both the legislative and executive branches of government. As an acolyte of Jefferson, I disagree entirely with the notion of an activist court, and even oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, along with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling that enabled the court to become the sole arbiter of power this country has, by voting for itself to have such extreme power.

Dredd Scott, Roe, Citizens United, hell, even Brown v. Board of Edu, Buckley v. Valeo, etc.

All of these cases and arbitrary rulings were -unnecessary- because the social changes in the nation had already decided the fate of these issues. No one thought money is free speech; this means some folks have more speech than others. No one wanted to continue segregation save southern autocrats - overwhelmingly the public did and still does support abortion.

The SCOTUS has usurped the freedom and will of the people. I almost never agree with the right wing, but they are correct about activism among the Justices. The issue with the right is that they have figured out the court has this authority and has used it to rule in favor of corporate power for decades now.

So, change my mind. Nothing can be instituted as law withought these 9 unelected arbiters agreeing it is "constitutional."

This was never how the court was envisioned by our founders.

 

[ttwtt78640]

....Judicial review. The SCOTUS was -never- meant to be the absurd power house that it is, usurping the power of both the legislative and executive branches of government. As an acolyte of Jefferson, I disagree entirely with the notion of an activist court, and even oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, along with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling that enabled the court to become the sole arbiter of power this country has, by voting for itself to have such extreme power.

Dredd Scott, Roe, Citizens United, hell, even Brown v. Board of Edu, Buckley v. Valeo, etc.

All of these cases and arbitrary rulings were -unnecessary- because the social changes in the nation had already decided the fate of these issues. No one thought money is free speech; this means some folks have more speech than others. No one wanted to continue segregation save southern autocrats - overwhelmingly the public did and still does support abortion.

The SCOTUS has usurped the freedom and will of the people. I almost never agree with the right wing, but they are correct about activism among the Justices. The issue with the right is that they have figured out the court has this authority and has used it to rule in favor of corporate power for decades now.

So, change my mind. Nothing can be instituted as law withought these 9 unelected arbiters agreeing it is "constitutional."

This was never how the court was envisioned by our founders.

That (bolded above) is largely because having a huge federal government was never envisioned by our founders. Since nearly anything (everything?) can be said to be related to the federal powers to tax, regulate commerce and/or promote the general welfare the rest of the constitution attempting to limit (enumerate?) the powers of the federal government has faded into the background.

The feeling (interpretation?) of the SCOTUS is that if congress (or themselves?) deems some (any?) "issue" to be 'important' then it is a federal power to deal with it. Couple that with a congress which writes "fill in the blank" laws allowing the executive to make 'rules' to deal with the details (like DACA/DAPA) then we have no limit on or separation of federal powers.

 

[Obscurity]

That (bolded above) is largely because having a huge federal government was never envisioned by our founders. Since nearly anything (everything?) can be said to be related to the federal powers to tax, regulate commerce and/or promote the general welfare the rest of the constitution attempting to limit (enumerate?) the powers of the federal government has faded into the background.

The feeling (interpretation?) of the SCOTUS is that if congress (or themselves?) deems some (any?) "issue" to be 'important' then it is a federal power to deal with it. Couple that with a congress which writes "fill in the blank" laws allowing the executive to make 'rules' to deal with the details (like DACA/DAPA) then we have no limit on or separation of federal powers.

Agreed, and to add to this, I am sure the founders never envisioned a stagnant Constitution that is barely ever amended, and instead, bickered over and squabbled about, while abdicating responsibility from one branch to the next. Further, I am sure the founders also never envisioned people re-electing representatives endlessly while those reps do not do what the people ask them to do.

 

[ocean515]

....Judicial review. The SCOTUS was -never- meant to be the absurd power house that it is, usurping the power of both the legislative and executive branches of government. As an acolyte of Jefferson, I disagree entirely with the notion of an activist court, and even oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, along with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling that enabled the court to become the sole arbiter of power this country has, by voting for itself to have such extreme power.

Dredd Scott, Roe, Citizens United, hell, even Brown v. Board of Edu, Buckley v. Valeo, etc.

All of these cases and arbitrary rulings were -unnecessary- because the social changes in the nation had already decided the fate of these issues. No one thought money is free speech; this means some folks have more speech than others. No one wanted to continue segregation save southern autocrats - overwhelmingly the public did and still does support abortion.

The SCOTUS has usurped the freedom and will of the people. I almost never agree with the right wing, but they are correct about activism among the Justices. The issue with the right is that they have figured out the court has this authority and has used it to rule in favor of corporate power for decades now.

So, change my mind. Nothing can be instituted as law withought these 9 unelected arbiters agreeing it is "constitutional."

This was never how the court was envisioned by our founders.

Biggest issue is the effort to marginalize the Constitution, and violate Citizens rights under the shadow of a biased media, and a political party attempting to take unilateral control of the Country by any means necessary.

 

[Irredentist]

Both political parties attempting to take unilateral control of the Country by any means necessary.

Fixed it for you

 

[Obscurity]

Biggest issue is the effort to marginalize the Constitution, and violate Citizens rights under the shadow of a biased media, and a political party attempting to take unilateral control of the Country by any means necessary.

I disagree. An activist court reigns supreme - no matter who is in control, and no matter what "we the people" say.

For example, the US public overwhelmingly supports paid maternity (and paternity, but by a smaller margin) leave. Even if we had the legislative and executive will to sign into law a bill laying out this desire, the activist court can simply strike it down. Or, in the case of firearms; the court can simply say, based on who is appointed, that the 2nd amendment means an actual militia based on their personal interpretation, and outlaw firearm ownership unless you're a member of a militia.

This is the most egregious violation of our constitution and founders intent, bar none. I know for you, you want to be hyperpartisan and want the supreme court to be activist because you think you're benefitting from it now - but in the future, that will change, undoubtedly.

 

[ocean515]

Fixed it for you

I guess when you have nothing to offer, you fix someone's post to try and hide the fact.

 

[Marine Electric]

....Judicial review. The SCOTUS was -never- meant to be the absurd power house that it is, usurping the power of both the legislative and executive branches of government. As an acolyte of Jefferson, I disagree entirely with the notion of an activist court, and even oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, along with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling that enabled the court to become the sole arbiter of power this country has, by voting for itself to have such extreme power.

Dredd Scott, Roe, Citizens United, hell, even Brown v. Board of Edu, Buckley v. Valeo, etc.

All of these cases and arbitrary rulings were -unnecessary- because the social changes in the nation had already decided the fate of these issues. No one thought money is free speech; this means some folks have more speech than others. No one wanted to continue segregation save southern autocrats - overwhelmingly the public did and still does support abortion.

The SCOTUS has usurped the freedom and will of the people. I almost never agree with the right wing, but they are correct about activism among the Justices. The issue with the right is that they have figured out the court has this authority and has used it to rule in favor of corporate power for decades now.

So, change my mind. Nothing can be instituted as law withought these 9 unelected arbiters agreeing it is "constitutional."

This was never how the court was envisioned by our founders.

So, you don't believe in checks-and-balances? Got it.

And BTW, the right-wing is more guilty than anyone else with whole "activism among the Justices" accusations - they have demanded/received "judicial activism" more than any other political demographic. That's why it is such a political priority for them - why they're always pushing so hard to put partisan judges on the bench. That's why they always celebrate so much when they do.

Clearly, any true lover of freedom would prefer a judge who is objective and balanced and not a partisan hack.

TRUTH!!

 

[Irredentist]

I guess when you have nothing to offer, you fix someone's post to try and hide the fact.

Makes no difference to me friend, I just prefer to clarify the issue; it's not one party tearing the fabric of democracy, it's both.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Agreed, and to add to this, I am sure the founders never envisioned a stagnant Constitution that is barely ever amended, and instead, bickered over and squabbled about, while abdicating responsibility from one branch to the next. Further, I am sure the founders also never envisioned people re-electing representatives endlessly while those reps do not do what the people ask them to do.

Voting at the federal level is largely futile with the winner take all EC allocation system, gerrymandering and the fact that one may vote for (or against) at most 3 of the 535 congress critters. I am willing to bet that most voters could not even name their two US Senators and single US House district representative much less how (or even if) they voted on a given "major" bill.

 

[ocean515]

I disagree. An activist court reigns supreme - no matter who is in control, and no matter what "we the people" say.

For example, the US public overwhelmingly supports paid maternity (and paternity, but by a smaller margin) leave. Even if we had the legislative and executive will to sign into law a bill laying out this desire, the activist court can simply strike it down. Or, in the case of firearms; the court can simply say, based on who is appointed, that the 2nd amendment means an actual militia based on their personal interpretation, and outlaw firearm ownership unless you're a member of a militia.

This is the most egregious violation of our constitution and founders intent, bar none. I know for you, you want to be hyperpartisan and want the supreme court to be activist because you think you're benefitting from it now - but in the future, that will change, undoubtedly.

Judicial activism, as the nation has seen coming from Obama and Clinton appointees is a serious problem.

However, media propaganda, coordinated with a political agenda, which includes intimidation, and threats of violence, are much more dangerous to a free society than the actions on various issue by activist judges.

It's that indoctrination and intimidation that allows the judicial activism to take place.

 

[Obscurity]

So, you don't believe in checks-and-balances? Got it.

And BTW, the right-wing is more guilty than anyone else with whole "activism among the Justices" accusations - they have demanded/received "judicial activism" more than any other political demographic. That's why it is such a political priority for them - why they're always pushing so hard to put partisan judges on the bench. That's why they always celebrate so much when they do.

Clearly, any true lover of freedom would prefer a judge who is objective and balanced and not a partisan hack.

TRUTH!!

Oh, I absolutely believe in checks and balances. But tell me, is there any "check" or "balance" when the SCOTUS can simply rule anything unconstitutional?

Let's assume for a moment we have a legislative body and executive with the backing of a supermajority of individuals in the country to enact, for example, a law that would require employers or tax dollars to fund maternity and paternity leave.

It doesn't matter that in our example let's assume 90% of americans support it (The number is actually lower but not by much in reality.) It doesn't matter that the two competing branches, legislative and executive branches signed it into law. The SCOTUS can simply rule it unconstitutional and deny the vasty majority of our country their power.

WE THE PEOPLE are to be empowered by our constitution; not restrained by it. 9 Unelected justices can simply deny the will of everyone in the nation - if ever that actually happened. This unfettered power has created a despotic bench that rules with an iron fist, usurps the power of the legislative branch with no oversight, and usurps the power of the executive, with no oversight.

 

[Obscurity]

Judicial activism, as the nation has seen coming from Obama and Clinton appointees is a serious problem.

However, media propaganda, coordinated with a political agenda, which includes intimidation, and threats of violence, are much more dangerous to a free society than the actions on various issue by activist judges.

It's that indoctrination and intimidation that allows the judicial activism to take place.

Wrong. Marbury v. Madison allowed this to happen, and other cases I posted show this is far greater a problem than "obama and clinton judges." It's quite clear this topic is beyond your capacity for reason and logic, so from this point forward, I will not engage you on this subject. You're here to sling poo; I am here to discuss a valid concern of despotic justices ruling with no oversight.

 

[gdgyva]

I disagree. An activist court reigns supreme - no matter who is in control, and no matter what "we the people" say.

For example, the US public overwhelmingly supports paid maternity (and paternity, but by a smaller margin) leave. Even if we had the legislative and executive will to sign into law a bill laying out this desire, the activist court can simply strike it down. Or, in the case of firearms; the court can simply say, based on who is appointed, that the 2nd amendment means an actual militia based on their personal interpretation, and outlaw firearm ownership unless you're a member of a militia.

This is the most egregious violation of our constitution and founders intent, bar none. I know for you, you want to be hyperpartisan and want the supreme court to be activist because you think you're benefitting from it now - but in the future, that will change, undoubtedly.

If congress passes "mandatory paid maternity" the number of females hires, especially at the lower ages will shrink by 10-15%

I will start looking at young men for jobs that usually young women do....and i guarantee a LOT of other owner/managers of small businesses will do the same

FMLA is enough to deal with...guaranteeing they have a job to come back to...

Now you want me to pay them for six plus weeks of work they didnt do?

I wont hire them in the first place.....

 

[Obscurity]

If congress passes "mandatory paid maternity" the number of females hires, especially at the lower ages will shrink by 10-15%

I will start looking at young men for jobs that usually young women do....and i guarantee a LOT of other owner/managers of small businesses will do the same

FMLA is enough to deal with...guaranteeing they have a job to come back to...

Now you want me to pay them for six plus weeks of work they didnt do?

I wont hire them in the first place.....

And? None of that is relevant to the point. The point is that it doesnt matter what the people want, only what 9 unelected, appointed, life time hires decide something unconstitutional, no matter how out of touch they are with the public at large. "Originalism" is just a cover word for corporatism, and textualism is just a cover word for oligarchism. It's been exposed. At the end of the day both sides of this coin do the bidding of their political idologies, not of the people themselves. The SCOTUS was never envisioned to be this powerful and was always envisioned to be the weakest of the 3 branches. They couldn't legislate, and they could not appropriate funds; they were to simply be the final appellate court, and to arbitrate cases between the states and the Federal Government and foreign countries, nothing more.

 

[JasperL]

Judicial activism, as the nation has seen coming from Obama and Clinton appointees is a serious problem.

However, media propaganda, coordinated with a political agenda, which includes intimidation, and threats of violence, are much more dangerous to a free society than the actions on various issue by activist judges.

It's that indoctrination and intimidation that allows the judicial activism to take place.

Judicial activism is just "I didn't like the court's ruling."

 

[ttwtt78640]

If congress passes "mandatory paid maternity" the number of females hires, especially at the lower ages will shrink by 10-15%

I will start looking at young men for jobs that usually young women do....and i guarantee a LOT of other owner/managers of small businesses will do the same

FMLA is enough to deal with...guaranteeing they have a job to come back to...

Now you want me to pay them for six plus weeks of work they didnt do?

I wont hire them in the first place.....

Yep, and the concept of equal pay for equal work would (no doubt) go by the wayside as the law would apply differently to large and small employers (as we have seen in some state/city MW laws and, of course, PPACA.

 

[ocean515]

Wrong. Marbury v. Madison allowed this to happen, and other cases I posted show this is far greater a problem than "obama and clinton judges." It's quite clear this topic is beyond your capacity for reason and logic, so from this point forward, I will not engage you on this subject. You're here to sling poo; I am here to discuss a valid concern of despotic justices ruling with no oversight.

Laughable conclusion.

Don't be a jerk.

You asked a question and think it's ok to attack and insult someone who offers their opinion?

So just another Flame/Bait/Troll thread from you.

Worthless.

 

[ocean515]

Judicial activism is just "I didn't like the court's ruling."

No it isn't.

It's governing the people by judicial fiat.

Judge's Fiat Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

 

[Obscurity]

Laughable conclusion.

Don't be a jerk.

You asked a question and think it's ok to attack and insult someone who offers their opinion?

So just another Flame/Bait/Troll thread from you.

Worthless.

This thread is not about the partisan ruminations of someone who wants to solely blame one side of the equation here. Unlike you, I disagree with the court ruling where the society and the people have domain. We the people decide what is socially acceptable, not 9 activist clowns appointed by presidents and with no oversight. You simply want to blame democrats and leftists; go do that somewhere else; it's off topic.

 

[ocean515]

This thread is not about the partisan ruminations of someone who wants to solely blame one side of the equation here. Unlike you, I disagree with the court ruling where the society and the people have domain. We the people decide what is socially acceptable, not 9 activist clowns appointed by presidents and with no oversight. You simply want to blame democrats and leftists; go do that somewhere else; it's off topic.

The irony is cascading from your post.

This Flame/Bait/Troll thread is pathetic.

 

[Captain Adverse]

....Judicial review. The SCOTUS was -never- meant to be the absurd power house that it is, usurping the power of both the legislative and executive branches of government. As an acolyte of Jefferson, I disagree entirely with the notion of an activist court, and even oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, along with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling that enabled the court to become the sole arbiter of power this country has, by voting for itself to have such extreme power.

Dredd Scott, Roe, Citizens United, hell, even Brown v. Board of Edu, Buckley v. Valeo, etc.

All of these cases and arbitrary rulings were -unnecessary- because the social changes in the nation had already decided the fate of these issues. No one thought money is free speech; this means some folks have more speech than others. No one wanted to continue segregation save southern autocrats - overwhelmingly the public did and still does support abortion.

The SCOTUS has usurped the freedom and will of the people. I almost never agree with the right wing, but they are correct about activism among the Justices. The issue with the right is that they have figured out the court has this authority and has used it to rule in favor of corporate power for decades now.

So, change my mind. Nothing can be instituted as law withought these 9 unelected arbiters agreeing it is "constitutional."

This was never how the court was envisioned by our founders.

Hmmm...

One must ask, what is the purpose of a Court? It is to arbitrate the Law.

What is the supreme law of the USA? The Constitution.

What branch of government was set up to arbitrate the law of the land? The Supreme Court.

This is how Marbury v. Madison was raised, and the idea of Judicial Review came about.

Congress makes laws, the President enforces laws, and the Judiciary (SCOTUS) arbitrates those laws and actions.

This works, otherwise we would have no way to seek justice.

If the people who created the Constitution didn't want it to work this way, don't you think that immediately after Marbury they would have amended the Constitution?

 

[Obscurity]

Hmmm...

One must ask, what is the purpose of a Court? It is to arbitrate the Law.

What is the supreme law of the USA? The Constitution.

What branch of government was set up to arbitrate the law of the land? The Supreme Court.

This is how Marbury v. Madison was raised, and the idea of Judicial Review came about.

Congress makes laws, the President enforces laws, and the SCOTUS arbitrates those laws and actions.

This works, otherwise we would have no way to seek justice.

Wrong. Our way to seek justice is to oust legislators and presidents who do not do the will of the people. Remember, the court was -never- intended to do this; Jefferson feared a despotic tyranny of a court system which simply decides what a constitution means, and this is entirely too fickle; one appointed court can simply undo things, no matter the will of the people or their elected representatives.

Essentially, the court can lock us into a legal stance from decades ago, ignoring the changes in the world, society, culture, what have you.

Tell me, who has oversight of the scotus? Which court/authority can tell the scotus they're wrong? With lifetime appointments, another contoversial topic, who gets to say to them their interpretation is incorrect?

 

[ataraxia]

....Judicial review. The SCOTUS was -never- meant to be the absurd power house that it is, usurping the power of both the legislative and executive branches of government. As an acolyte of Jefferson, I disagree entirely with the notion of an activist court, and even oppose the Roe v. Wade ruling itself, along with the 1803 Marbury v. Madison ruling that enabled the court to become the sole arbiter of power this country has, by voting for itself to have such extreme power.

Dredd Scott, Roe, Citizens United, hell, even Brown v. Board of Edu, Buckley v. Valeo, etc.

All of these cases and arbitrary rulings were -unnecessary- because the social changes in the nation had already decided the fate of these issues. No one thought money is free speech; this means some folks have more speech than others. No one wanted to continue segregation save southern autocrats - overwhelmingly the public did and still does support abortion.

The SCOTUS has usurped the freedom and will of the people. I almost never agree with the right wing, but they are correct about activism among the Justices. The issue with the right is that they have figured out the court has this authority and has used it to rule in favor of corporate power for decades now.

So, change my mind. Nothing can be instituted as law withought these 9 unelected arbiters agreeing it is "constitutional."

This was never how the court was envisioned by our founders.

Yeah, well the problem is that if the legislative branch passes a law some people don't like, they are always going to try to see if they can overturn it by challenging it in court. That's why all those cases ended up there. It turns out sometimes it IS unconstitutional.

How else would you propose such situations be handled?

 

[ataraxia]

Wrong. Our way to seek justice is to oust legislators and presidents who do not do the will of the people. Remember, the court was -never- intended to do this; Jefferson feared a despotic tyranny of a court system which simply decides what a constitution means, and this is entirely too fickle; one appointed court can simply undo things, no matter the will of the people or their elected representatives.

Essentially, the court can lock us into a legal stance from decades ago, ignoring the changes in the world, society, culture, what have you.

Tell me, who has oversight of the scotus? Which court/authority can tell the scotus they're wrong? With lifetime appointments, another contoversial topic, who gets to say to them their interpretation is incorrect?

Through the kinds of presidents the people elect who appoint these judges? Or maybe the congress which can refuse to endorse them?