U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,771,514 times
Reputation: 3123

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Not once did they say they don't accept cases because they are not compelling, which is your argument. They base it on relative importance and need for a final resolution. That doesn't mean the cases they opt not to take are not compelling or important. It just means they are not as important as the cases they do take.
Of course the court only hear cases that have importance. Cases they do not hear, are cases they do not believe have important constitutional issues. You some how believe the court is overloaded. Any support that you could provided would be appreciated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:57 PM
 
3,083 posts, read 3,281,378 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
By definition the supreme court acts constitutionally because it is the arbiter of what is constitutional.
Are you serious? You're essentially saying they can't be wrong because they decide what is right or wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,771,514 times
Reputation: 3123
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post
The original video is stupid. Sorry, but its simply not analogous. Don't see how this thread went further than a couple of posts.

Because Paulistas are true believers. If you in any way suggest what you just did they attack. They will call you every name they can think of, but have little real coherent argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Texas
23,833 posts, read 10,019,502 times
Reputation: 5331
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Speaking of twisted. Please point out where it is "proven I have no problem with government taking away freedoms and liberty through action"?
Again, Prohibition ring a bell? Segregation in the military ring a bell?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,771,514 times
Reputation: 3123
Quote:
Originally Posted by outbacknv View Post
Are you serious? You're essentially saying they can't be wrong because they decide what is right or wrong.
Pretty much. That is the way the system we have is set up. You can disagree with a particular ruling the court makes, it doesn't make that ruling unconstitutional. That is why the founding fathers were smart enough to provided a mechanism for constitutional amendments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:01 PM
 
Location: NC
10,005 posts, read 8,722,237 times
Reputation: 3062
Quote:
Originally Posted by shorebaby View Post
Of course the court only hear cases that have importance. Cases they do not hear, are cases they do not believe have important constitutional issues. You some how believe the court is overloaded. Any support that you could provided would be appreciated.
The fact that Court only hears cases that are important doesn't mean that some of the cases they don't hear are not also important or novel. That is just a logical reasoning mistake.

I absolutely believe the court it over loaded. If you get 7,000 cases, but only can hear 80 that is over loaded. Furthermore as I said appeals lawyers are not stupid people, they know the court tends to look for constitutional questions so to argue that only 80/7000 cases that are brought by attorneys appealing to the SCOTUS have important constitutional questions is just silly.

Heck in fact 3 supreme court justices could think an issue is important enough to hear and it would still get denied cert.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:02 PM
 
3,083 posts, read 3,281,378 times
Reputation: 2350
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Again, Prohibition ring a bell? Segregation in the military ring a bell?
I'd add the internment of Japanese Americans to the list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,771,514 times
Reputation: 3123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry View Post
Again, Prohibition ring a bell? Segregation in the military ring a bell?
Does the 18th amendment to the constitution ring a bell? Are you suggesting a constitutional amendment is unconstitutional? Yes, segregation was ruled unconstitutional.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
5,877 posts, read 4,025,384 times
Reputation: 4130
Quote:
Originally Posted by rantanamo View Post
The original video is stupid. Sorry, but its simply not analogous. Don't see how this thread went further than a couple of posts.
How is not analogous?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2011, 03:08 PM
 
Location: Hoboken
19,891 posts, read 15,771,514 times
Reputation: 3123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
The fact that Court only hears cases that are important doesn't mean that some of the cases they don't hear are not also important or novel. That is just a logical reasoning mistake.

I absolutely believe the court it over loaded. If you get 7,000 cases, but only can hear 80 that is over loaded. Furthermore as I said appellate lawyers are not stupid people, they know the court tends to look for constitutional questions so to argue that only 80/7000 cases that are brought by attorneys appealing to the SCOTUS have important constitutional questions is just silly.
The fact that 7,000 people think they have unique constitutional cases doesn't make it so. Again, I asked for some proof, perhaps a scholarly paper, or an opinion piece to support you claim. In checking your claim I found nothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top