• 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!

The US Supreme Court

Do you have a point you would like to make?

If so, make it.
He is mocking the arguments that I made in another thread...

He made this thread as a way to "counter" my persistent counterargumentation to his position on this issue. My position on this issue really bothers him, apparently. He's attempting to draw in numerous "like-minded" people as a way to overshadow my counterarguments to his position (and make me doubt them) through a "majority rules" mindset... He's doing a very poor job at this attempted Argumentum Ad Populum logical fallacy thus far...

At this point, he also continues to resort to the Argument by Repetition Fallacy, thinking that repeating his (already countered) arguments over and over [instead of responding to my counterarguments] will somehow make his original arguments correct.
 
False Authority Fallacy... Wikipedia is not the authority in this case; the US Constitution is, and nowhere does the US Constitution grant SCOTUS the power to interpret the Constitution.

Marbury v. Madison was essentially SCOTUS giving themselves a power of which the US Constitution never granted to them. SCOTUS overstepped their bounds.
Nope. For starters, Wikipedia is an awful source, full of misinformation and incompleteness, and it can be edited by anyone... I don't accept it as a valid source of anything. I typically dismiss Wikipedia links on sight, especially if one is committing the False Authority Fallacy with them, like you are doing.

Also, I don't engage in 'holy link wars'... I typically don't respond to links because using links as your argument amounts to you making use of the arguments of others (which is intellectual laziness in my book). I will typically only engage your own arguments.


It really isn't nuanced at all... The US Constitution is very clear about what the role of SCOTUS is, and "interpreting the US Constitution" is NOT one of those roles... SCOTUS unconstitutionally granted themselves that power through Marbury v. Madison...

Use any source you wish. Marbury v Madison is 215 years worth of US legal precedence - I will refer you back to Chomsky's post #7: https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...reme-court-post1069337351.html#post1069337351. The remainder of your posts above should reside in the CT sub-forum.
 
Use any source you wish.
I wish to use the US Constitution...

Marbury v Madison is 215 years worth of US legal precedence - I will refer you back to Chomsky's post #7: https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-c...reme-court-post1069337351.html#post1069337351.
Splendid... it's still not language contained within the US Constitution...

The remainder of your posts above should reside in the CT sub-forum.
The US Constitution is not a conspiracy. It is the governing document of our Federated Republic...
 
See Article 3 of the US Constitution...


They don't determine what is the law... Laws are passed by Congress, not by SCOTUS. SCOTUS makes rulings based on the text, using the word meanings that were used at the time the text was ratified.


False Authority Fallacy. SCOTUS doesn't determine what their powers are. Rather, the US Constitution does, and it is the proper authority in this case. The US Constitution does NOT give SCOTUS the power of interpreting the US Constitution...


Nope, SCOTUS (under the US Constitution) has no business doing it.



If one is to abide by the US Constitution, then yes, that is a very valid viewpoint. The powers of SCOTUS derive from the US Constitution, and SCOTUS is as bound to it as any other branch of government is, so yes, if they actually do have interpretive powers, then those powers should be easily recognizable in the text of the US Constitution...

Those powers aren't there. If they are, show me where they are...

So how would all this work? The Speaker of the House, say, after that body had written laws and conveniently declared them to be constitutional, would write the legal opinions, then pass things to the Senate for their crack at it? Then two years later a new House with a different Speaker would contradict the previous one and say things were not constitutional?

Marshall got it right.
 
So how would all this work? The Speaker of the House, say, after that body had written laws and conveniently declared them to be constitutional, would write the legal opinions,
The Speaker of the House has no power nor duty to write legal opinions...

then pass things to the Senate for their crack at it?
Yup. If the House thought something was Constitutional, then they would support it. If the Senate thought otherwise, then they would not support it. Same with the President... BAM, "checks and balances"...

Now, back in the day when the Senate was the State's representation in government, the States would be able to send people to the White House who represented their views, like what the people of each county of each state do for their House representatives (and now senators on a statewide scale, of which the Senate is essentially just a smaller version of the House at this point).

Then two years later a new House with a different Speaker would contradict the previous one and say things were not constitutional?
Yup... but they would also need support (shared views) from the Senate and the President.

Marshall got it right.
It's irrelevant whether or not Marshall is right; Truth is, he overstepped his bounds. He had no Constitutional authority to give SCOTUS interpretive powers (and to act like no other branch of government, nor the American people, can keep SCOTUS in check)... SCOTUS does not legislate... That's what Congress does... The USA is a Federated Republic, not an Oligarchy controlled by SCOTUS...
 
Last edited:
I wish to use the US Constitution...


Splendid... it's still not language contained within the US Constitution...


The US Constitution is not a conspiracy. It is the governing document of our Federated Republic...

Okay...

It would appear that you would agree that the US Constitution is the highest law of the United States of America. If so, then read Article III, Section 2, et al of the US Constitution and since you don't like links, here's the quotation for you (visual enhancements by me):
US Constitution
Article III
Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

After you've read that then please tell me, precisely, how that doesn't give the SCOTUS the Constitutional authority described in Marbury v Madison.

As Chomsky so eloquently stated in the 7th post of this thread:
In a nutshell, the key point in Marbury is:

Is the Constitution "Law"? Or, is it "Principles & Ideals"?

If the Constitution is law, it follows that SCOTUS has the power of Judicial Review.
 
Okay...

It would appear that you would agree that the US Constitution is the highest law of the United States of America.
Correct.

If so, then read Article III, Section 2, et al of the US Constitution and since you don't like links, here's the quotation for you (visual enhancements by me):
I'm fine with links in this case, since it is linking to the proper authority in question.

After you've read that then please tell me, precisely, how that doesn't give the SCOTUS the Constitutional authority described in Marbury v Madison.

Because none of the language that you put into red letters mentions any SCOTUS power of being the sole arbiter of what is (un)constitutional.

It mentions how the judiciary is to be composed, and how judicial power extends to all cases under the Constitution and other US Laws... The "their authority" mentioned is the authority of the Constitution and other US Law, not SCOTUS... The other red lettered part is merely mentioning the jurisdiction rules of SCOTUS (which are subject to Congress), not of any power to be the sole arbiter of the US Constitution...

Try again...
 
Correct.


I'm fine with links in this case, since it is linking to the proper authority in question.



Because none of the language that you put into red letters mentions any SCOTUS power of being the sole arbiter of what is (un)constitutional.

It mentions how the judiciary is to be composed, and how judicial power extends to all cases under the Constitution and other US Laws... The "their authority" mentioned is the authority of the Constitution and other US Law, not SCOTUS... The other red lettered part is merely mentioning the jurisdiction rules of SCOTUS (which are subject to Congress), not of any power to be the sole arbiter of the US Constitution...

Try again...

If the law, the facts, and the reality of 215 years of United States jurisprudence are not acceptable for you, then I go back to my original comment referencing the CT sub-forum as being a good location for such post content.
 
The Speaker of the House has no power nor duty to write legal opinions...


Yup. If the House thought something was Constitutional, then they would support it. If the Senate thought otherwise, then they would not support it. Same with the President... BAM, "checks and balances"...

++ Makes no sense. Why not just pass legislation? Same thing happens now without Congress having to make decisions it is not qualified/experienced for. Seems like a great system for us to have third parties insulated from the two-year election cycle pass on the constitutionality of the laws. That’s the tradition of judges: you and I have a beef, we take it to a judge. We don’t put it to a vote. Don’t think there is much of a chance of changing this anyway.

Now, back in the day when the Senate was the State's representation in government, the States would be able to send people to the White House who represented their views, like what the people of each county of each state do for their House representatives (and now senators on a statewide scale, of which the Senate is essentially just a smaller version of the House at this point).

++ Oh, the old don’t let the people choose Senators, that it’s better left up to the state legislatures, aka business, labor and other donors that used to control them before the amendment gave us the vote. As I recall, that was the old John Birch Society mantra, that the great US decline started when actual people got to vote for Senators. States don’t need representation, people do.


Yup... but they would also need support (shared views) from the Senate and the President.


It's irrelevant whether or not Marshall is right; Truth is, he overstepped his bounds. He had no Constitutional authority to give SCOTUS interpretive powers (and to act like no other branch of government, nor the American people, can keep SCOTUS in check)... SCOTUS does not legislate... That's what Congress does... The USA is a Federated Republic, not an Oligarchy controlled by SCOTUS...

No one seems rushing to overturn Marbury. Face it, we like the way this works. And gee, your whole post doesn’t mention democracy once. Aside from the federated republic, we are one of those as well. We you disappointed as you read how we gradually went from only white male property owners voting to our current predicament, where even the ladies get to have a say? Look, my unfair sarcasm aside, an oligarchy was the system that Marshall’s decision prevented from happening, as the courts have played a role of equalizing power, notwithstanding their recent “money as speech” decision. A direction of government closer to the will of the people has continued since then. It has its problems, as evidenced by the current president celebrating the ignorance he sees in his voters, but that’s a relatively small price to pay.
 
Last edited:
If the law,
The US Constitution supports my assertions.

the facts,
Facts are not universal truths, nor are they proofs... Learn what a fact is...

and the reality
Define 'reality'...

of 215 years of United States jurisprudence are not acceptable for you,
Appeal to Tradition Fallacy...

Also, that specific jurisprudence denies the US Constitution.

then I go back to my original comment referencing the CT sub-forum as being a good location for such post content.
And once again, the US Constitution is NOT a conspiracy theory...
 
No one seems rushing to overturn Marbury.
That's fine.

Face it, we like the way this works.
Then amend the Constitution.

And gee, your whole post doesn’t mention democracy once.
Because the USA is not a Democracy. The USA is a Federated Republic.

Aside from the federated republic, we are one of those as well.
Paradox. A country cannot be both. It is one or the other.

A Democracy is mob rule (rule of men)... A Republic is constitutional rule (rule of law).

We you disappointed as you read how we gradually went from only white male property owners voting to our current predicament, where even the ladies get to have a say?
Argumentum Ad Hominem and sarcasm dismissed on sight... No need to (without any reason) accuse me of being racist and sexist, even if merely doing so sarcastically...

Look, my unfair sarcasm aside, an oligarchy was the system that Marshall’s decision prevented from happening,
Wrong. An oligarchy is EXACTLY what has resulted from Marshall's decision (and also from the other branches of government and the American people giving up their duties of interpreting the Constitution and keeping SCOTUS (and each other) in check)...

as the courts have played a role of equalizing power, notwithstanding their recent “money as speech” decision.
They have taken power away from everyone else and given it to themselves... Nobody really keeps the courts in check...

A direction of government closer to the will of the people has continued since then.
Yes, people are (as the Oligarchs want) getting suckered into thinking that the USA is a Democracy (since Democracies always fail) so that the Oligarchs (the Marxist "one world order" Democrat types) can take over the country and make it comply with the European Union...

It has its problems, as evidenced by the current president celebrating the ignorance he sees in his voters, but that’s a relatively small price to pay.
This goes well beyond our current president... This is a global movement...
 
Nickyjo said:
++ Oh, the old don’t let the people choose Senators, that it’s better left up to the state legislatures, aka business, labor and other donors that used to control them before the amendment gave us the vote. As I recall, that was the old John Birch Society mantra, that the great US decline started when actual people got to vote for Senators. States don’t need representation, people do.

People ALREADY had representation... That representation is called the House of Representatives... The Senate was meant for State representation... States also have interests and ought to have representation on the federal level as well, just as people do...
 
What is the role of the US Supreme Court ?


The 9 SC Justices that make up the SC pass rulings to determine what is the law when lower courts cannot or their ruling(s) are challenged.

According to the web page of the US Supreme Court, it interprets the US Constitution:


"...The Court is the highest tribunal in the Nation for all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States. As the final arbiter of the law, the Court is charged with ensuring the American people the promise of equal justice under law and, thereby, also functions as guardian and interpreter of the Constitution..."


https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx


However is this correct, if the US Constitution doesn't specifically state that the SC is to interpret the Constitution, does the SC have any business doing it ?




It has been stated that "The Supreme Court has no such power (to interpret the Constitution). Show me (using the Constitution) where the Constitution grants the Supreme Court power to interpret it..."


Is this viewpoint valid ?

Marbury v Madison, usually the first thing law students study...The poster who claims Marshall over stepped his authority is likely a Jeffersonian. Marshall did take sole possession of the power to interpret the law over the objections of Tommy. Tommy lost and fought/hated Marshall for the rest of his life. We can all be thankful though that Marshall prevailed, he is truly one of the greatest men in our history. If this interests you, the details of this battle between them are captured in a wonderful book called "What Kind of Nation" by James Simon. I highly recommend it to everyone on this thread.
 
Last edited:
That's fine.


Then amend the Constitution.


Because the USA is not a Democracy. The USA is a Federated Republic.


Paradox. A country cannot be both. It is one or the other.

A Democracy is mob rule (rule of men)... A Republic is constitutional rule (rule of law).


Argumentum Ad Hominem and sarcasm dismissed on sight... No need to (without any reason) accuse me of being racist and sexist, even if merely doing so sarcastically...


Wrong. An oligarchy is EXACTLY what has resulted from Marshall's decision (and also from the other branches of government and the American people giving up their duties of interpreting the Constitution and keeping SCOTUS (and each other) in check)...


They have taken power away from everyone else and given it to themselves... Nobody really keeps the courts in check...


Yes, people are (as the Oligarchs want) getting suckered into thinking that the USA is a Democracy (since Democracies always fail) so that the Oligarchs (the Marxist "one world order" Democrat types) can take over the country and make it comply with the European Union...


This goes well beyond our current president... This is a global movement...

Simple question. Are there any cases wending their way through the courts making your position? And sorry if you were offended by my comments, which did refer to as unfair sarcasm, but you seemed in your comments uncomfortable with the franchise spreading. I am happy we have drifted more and more into a democratic direction. As the country changed we adapted and changed as well, and with the exception of the current acting AG, seem comfortable with Marbury.
 
People ALREADY had representation... That representation is called the House of Representatives... The Senate was meant for State representation... States also have interests and ought to have representation on the federal level as well, just as people do...

What are states? Lines drawn in the sand. What are their interests as states that supercede or are separate from the interests of their own people?
 
Simple question. Are there any cases wending their way through the courts making your position?
Probably not.

And sorry if you were offended by my comments, which did refer to as unfair sarcasm, but you seemed in your comments uncomfortable with the franchise spreading.
No offense taken. I just didn't see any relevance in those comments to the US Supreme Court nor how it operates... I'm not sure what you mean by 'the franchise spreading'...

I am happy we have drifted more and more into a democratic direction. As the country changed we adapted and changed as well, and with the exception of the current acting AG, seem comfortable with Marbury.
I am not so happy about it. I wish our country would have stayed in a Federated Republic mindset, where the Constitution was the 'law of the land' instead of nine SCOTUS members...
 
What are states? Lines drawn in the sand.
That would be the boundaries of each state... States consist of people... States are Republics just like the federal government (the USA as a country) is a Republic. Those fifty republics also have their own interests on a federal level, especially given that the States are what CREATED the federal government to begin with, and they ought to be represented at the federal level just as the people at the federal level represent themselves, just as us citizens ought to be represented at the federal level...

What are their interests as states that supercede or are separate from the interests of their own people?
For starters, they would have in interest in keeping their power over the federal government (as creators of it -- balancing state and federal power --) instead of having no representation and allowing the federal government to become as massive as it has become today...
 
That would be the boundaries of each state... States consist of people... States are Republics just like the federal government (the USA as a country) is a Republic. Those fifty republics also have their own interests on a federal level, especially given that the States are what CREATED the federal government to begin with, and they ought to be represented at the federal level just as the people at the federal level represent themselves, just as us citizens ought to be represented at the federal level...


For starters, they would have in interest in keeping their power over the federal government (as creators of it -- balancing state and federal power --) instead of having no representation and allowing the federal government to become as massive as it has become today...

I understand your sentiment, and agree that local is almost always better than federal. But states, by their behavior going back to their persecution of labor, inaction on lynching, failure in civil rights, worker safety, etc., prompted people to go to Washington for solutions. People are not as ideological as you or I am, they want problems solved. Hence they go to DC (or the courts.) In a perfect world, Mississippi would have obeyed the Constitutiin and let blacks vote. They didn’t, so black and white marched on Washington. I was injured (minor) at Bethlehem Steel in the 1960s due to incompetent safety equipment and my clumsiness. Years later after federal OSHA, I saw workers doing the same work as I had, only with equipment that would have prevented the scar on my leg.
 
I understand your sentiment, and agree that local is almost always better than federal.
Great.

But states, by their behavior going back to their persecution of labor, inaction on lynching, failure in civil rights, worker safety, etc., prompted people to go to Washington for solutions.
Wasn't necessary... States operate as a Republic, just like Washington does... State constitutions could have been amended... people could have moved from one state to another if they liked the laws of another state better... Some states maybe have reasons for enacting certain policies, and if that is all dictated by Washington, then Washington tries to do a "one size fits all" type of deal, and that just doesn't work because different states have different interests, moralities, beliefs, needs, etc. etc...

People are not as ideological as you or I am, they want problems solved.
Yeah. I like problems solved also...

Hence they go to DC (or the courts.)
There's no need... They could go to their respective State Governments... This could all be done and handled at the State level...

In a perfect world, Mississippi would have obeyed the Constitutiin and let blacks vote. They didn’t, so black and white marched on Washington.
Great.

I was injured (minor) at Bethlehem Steel in the 1960s due to incompetent safety equipment and my clumsiness. Years later after federal OSHA, I saw workers doing the same work as I had, only with equipment that would have prevented the scar on my leg.
That could have been done without OSHA.
 
Great.


Wasn't necessary... States operate as a Republic, just like Washington does... State constitutions could have been amended... people could have moved from one state to another if they liked the laws of another state better... Some states maybe have reasons for enacting certain policies, and if that is all dictated by Washington, then Washington tries to do a "one size fits all" type of deal, and that just doesn't work because different states have different interests, moralities, beliefs, needs, etc. etc...

++ So there I am in Mississippi in the 1930s. It l, as you suggest, has a different morality — it doesn’t punish murder. My 10-year son has just been lynched for whistling at a white girl. (Cf. Emmet Till) So instead of asking FDR for help, I gather petitions to amend the state constitution to end the literacy test, (given in Chinese to black people) so I can vote and put in a prosecutor who will take care of bringing the lynch mob to justice. But I too am lynched for so doing. Is it now ok for my surviving wife to ask for FDR’s help to get an anti-lynching law passed?


Yeah. I like problems solved also...


There's no need... They could go to their respective State Governments... This could all be done and handled at the State level...


Great.


That could have been done without OSHA.

Not if the state regulators had been bought off by business. Check out the deaths of 25 workers in a Hamlet, NC chicken processing plant. The doors were locked shut. Plant had never received state inspection. The feds took over safety regulation. Good move from my perspective. Care to put it to a vote?
 
I cant give an answer or opinion on the validity of the powers of the Court but the other branches have powers not written in the Constitution or in the Amendments and yet they stay in place so...
 
Back
Top Bottom