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.
And which part of the Constitution says decisions should be based on all or nothing? If that were the case, we wouldn't have a country to begin with because even then an all or nothing vote would have failed.
This has nothing to do with "personal," simply responding to your post with how it is incorrect. Maybe a US history course at your local community college would be a good idea.
9-0 is extreme, but there's no reason why a 'super-majority' can't be implemented.
With Thomas stepping down after the election, the prospects of getting a good SCOTUS improve greatly. Hillary will certainly make very good choices.
I assume you are trolling?
Otherwise, you just admitted to how the Supreme Court is a completely corrupt and worthless institution. Whose rulings are based on nothing more than their own personal biases.
Which is actually the truth BTW, but I rarely hear liberals admit it. They worship the government as if it was god himself.
Otherwise, you just admitted to how the Supreme Court is a completely corrupt and worthless institution. Whose rulings are based on nothing more than their own personal biases.
Which is actually the truth BTW, but I rarely hear liberals admit it. They worship the government as if it was god himself.
If it is not unanimous the ruling sides with the people, not the government.
If there is enough interest. The amendment process is spelled out, to authorize the government the power to make the call without a doubt.
Idea which is against democracy. It would end the freedom to dissent. It is like the idea of needing 60 votes to pass bills through the senate. It takes away the power of the people against a Govt. It would take away the individuals right to sue private Corp. and other individual's. Over time it would end all freedoms. Not every case is brought on by the Govt. or against the Federal Govt.
You are a one issue writer on this forum and cannot see how the constitution gives you the ability to come and discuss your ideas. Keep them coming but expect kick back from those who disagree.
And which part of the Constitution says decisions should be based on all or nothing? If that were the case, we wouldn't have a country to begin with because even then an all or nothing vote would have failed.
This has nothing to do with "personal," simply responding to your post with how it is incorrect. Maybe a US history course at your local community college would be a good idea.
WOW!!!! I never said any part of the constitution was based on all or nothing.
It was my opinion, that to take liberty, it should be be unanimous. If there is any doubt, it should not happen.
Even one descent, would put doubt that it is Constitutional.
A unanimous decision would leave no doubt.
You didn't respond to my post in a debative way. You personally, wanted to question the messenger personally, because the message was undebatable to you.
Great idea, Heller decision and Citizens United would have never made it.
States could continue to make up their own crazy laws without any intervention, you sure you want that.
Confused again?
That would be true, if people made laws and legislation, the government didn't like because they were harmed.
A split decision would have said, the government cannot do what they were doing... Not keep doing it unconstitutionally. It would have fallen the same way it did, with majority saying it was unconstitutional.
Without a unanimous ruling, it would default to being unconstitutional for the government to do to the people.
Just one descent would make the legislation unconstitutional. There would be doubt.
That still leaves doubt.
There should be absolutely no doubt it is Constitutional.
That is like picking a brain surgeon, that just graduated medical school with a D average.
The problem with a unanimous decision as that a single justice could use his personsal bias to shut down the court. Pivitol cases become open to tampering and bias. It makes the court weaker actually makes it easier for the government to take your liberty.
Say California decides that anything but a musket is illegal. It is challenged and ends up in the 9th circuit. There, appointed, political judges rule in favor of California. When it hits the SCOTUS, a single judge now has the power to dissent. If they can't all agree you know what happens.
The problem with a unanimous decision as that a single justice could use his personsal bias to shut down the court. Pivitol cases become open to tampering and bias. It makes the court weaker actually makes it easier for the government to take your liberty.
Say California decides that anything but a musket is illegal. It is challenged and ends up in the 9th circuit. There, appointed, political judges rule in favor of California. When it hits the SCOTUS, a single judge now has the power to dissent. If they can't all agree you know what happens.
Or use his power to keep government from intruding on the people any farther.
That is exactly how it would work until it got to the SC. If each time it had a 9-0 ruling that it was constitutional, then the government would be granted by the people to allow the intrusion.
Just one court saying no, then it would be up to the federal gov to appeal to the next higher court, to get the 9-0 they need to make it constitutional.
There should be no doubt. One judge with an attitude, nothing the government does is constitutional, would make for a bad day for government and their pursuit, to over power the peoples liberties.
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.
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.
