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.
I read the full text of Trump's Executive Order and read some statistics on these foreign born terrorist attacks Trump is so determined to protect us from. His EO is very vague about the so called improved vetting practices he plans to implement and they don't need to be improved anyway. Why? Because nationals of the seven countries listed by Trump have killed ZERO Americans in terrorist attacks on US soil between 1975 and 2015. As in no Americans. Not only that, the chances of being murdered by a regular person are 252.9 times greater than the chances of being murdered by a foreign born terrorist. The judges probably took these facts into account rather than listening to Trump's fearmongering and endless prattling about terrorism. Because the risk is minuscule.
You are taking things out of context... and with that.. I lost interest in the rest of the post.
You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between the court "ruling against itself", and "changing its opinion".
When I said that the court won't "rule against itself", I was talking about whether or not the Supreme Court would make a ruling in which the outcome, was to limit its power.
Or more-specifically, I was responding to your claim that, if I disagreed with "Judicial Review"(IE the power granted by the Supreme Court to itself in Marbury v. Madison), that I should take the Supreme Court, to the Supreme court, where THEY will be the judge of the extent of their own power.
Now, we obviously know that in that case, they are not an "unbiased" or "disinterested" party.
In the cases you cited, the difference is that in those cases, they actually are a disinterested third-party.
You don't expect someone on trial for murder, to be his own judge. No, you bring in disinterested third-parties. Why? Because the point of a trial is to be impartial, but we know that the murderer would not be impartial.
Thus, if you were to take the Supreme Court, to court, it is obvious that they could not be their own judge.
But if the Supreme Court can't be its own judge, then who should have the power to judge them?
Which brings us back to the question I repeatedly asked, "Can the Supreme Court be entrusted with deciding for itself the extent of its own power".
Now, we all know that the answer is "No". The question then is how then do we limit the power of the Supreme Court?
Your reply was that we should impeach them. And I said, in more than 230 years of bad Supreme Court decisions, not a single Supreme Court Justice has ever been removed from office.
You then replied that we should just pass an amendment. So my response was that, that has basically never happened either. With the primary exception being the few years after the Civil War(and the political chaos of post-war reconstruction is the only thing that made it possible).
Thus we come back to my central argument. I believe that the Supreme Court is too powerful, and the checks against the Supreme Court are either insufficient, or downright non-existent.
I agree with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court has become a sort of unelected, life-termed oligarchy. Which can completely reshape society at its discretion.
When I said that the court won't "rule against itself", I was talking about whether or not the Supreme Court would make a ruling in which the outcome, was to limit its power..
um..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I'm not sure what exactly you want me to show. You listed a couple of Supreme Court decisions which overturned previous decisions. How does that prove that the Supreme Court makes decisions based on the Constitution?
By definition the Judiciary is limited by the laws written. So ruling against itself is implied by changing or overturning its own previous rulings.
Article III, Section 2: "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."
There is much discussion on how Congress limits the Judiciary... for start.. google Jurisdiction stripping.
However, I certainly don't want to see a temporary immigration ban go on for the next 4 - 8 years with perhaps the next president extending it.
It won't happen. While those not allowed to re-enter do not get the rights of a citizen I do not believe that a single court is going to deny them due process in our courts.
Those excluded will be able to sue in court and will regularly win their right to return. While Trump can argue this is what he wanted in the first place the people are going to say, what is the point if all these people are proving to not be a threat to the country.
1) Most Americans believe that the Supreme Court has too much power. And that there isn't a "practical" solution to the problem
2) Most Americans do not believe that the Supreme Court's decisions have anything to do with the actual Constitution.
3) Most Americans, as their only means of defense, advocate for their representatives to "stack the court" with judges who will decide cases as they want them to, and are terrified of "the other party" being in power, because they will "lose control" of the courts, possibly for decades.
You may not see these as being a problem, but most people do. You seem to think that these are trivial matters, which can easily be addressed with statutes already on the books.
I think the difficulty of redress, in the vast-majority of cases, largely for reasons of partisan party-politics, makes your proposed solutions impractical(which is precisely why they haven't solved anything).
Furthermore, even the solutions you've advocated for, it isn't as if you actually support them. If the Congress came out attempting to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, to end their blocking the travel ban, you would believe it was unconstitutional and a violation of the independence of the Supreme Court.
In any case, this entire discussion is nothing but obnoxious partisan-politics masquerading as an intellectual debate.
You seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between the court "ruling against itself", and "changing its opinion".
When I said that the court won't "rule against itself", I was talking about whether or not the Supreme Court would make a ruling in which the outcome, was to limit its power.
Or more-specifically, I was responding to your claim that, if I disagreed with "Judicial Review"(IE the power granted by the Supreme Court to itself in Marbury v. Madison), that I should take the Supreme Court, to the Supreme court, where THEY will be the judge of the extent of their own power.
Now, we obviously know that in that case, they are not an "unbiased" or "disinterested" party.
In the cases you cited, the difference is that in those cases, they actually are a disinterested third-party.
You don't expect someone on trial for murder, to be his own judge. No, you bring in disinterested third-parties. Why? Because the point of a trial is to be impartial, but we know that the murderer would not be impartial.
Thus, if you were to take the Supreme Court, to court, it is obvious that they could not be their own judge.
But if the Supreme Court can't be its own judge, then who should have the power to judge them?
Which brings us back to the question I repeatedly asked, "Can the Supreme Court be entrusted with deciding for itself the extent of its own power".
Now, we all know that the answer is "No". The question then is how then do we limit the power of the Supreme Court?
Your reply was that we should impeach them. And I said, in more than 230 years of bad Supreme Court decisions, not a single Supreme Court Justice has ever been removed from office.
You then replied that we should just pass an amendment. So my response was that, that has basically never happened either. With the primary exception being the few years after the Civil War(and the political chaos of post-war reconstruction is the only thing that made it possible).
Thus we come back to my central argument. I believe that the Supreme Court is too powerful, and the checks against the Supreme Court are either insufficient, or downright non-existent.
I agree with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court has become a sort of unelected, life-termed oligarchy. Which can completely reshape society at its discretion.
That is not what the founders intended.
I agree with the late Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court has become a sort of unelected, life-termed oligarchy. Which can completely reshape society at its discretion. --which he was one LOL--
That is not what the founders intended.[/quote] were you there? if they had ruled in Trumps favor you be--
I have more faith in our judiciary than the current POTUS.
What is happening now with the state and courts challenging the President is not new. Many GOP dominated states initiated suits against Obama over the last eight years. I don't seem to recall the radical right complaining then.
And, per the Constitution, the executive branch is independent of the Supreme Court, and is not answerable to the Supreme Court, it is only answerable to the people, and their representatives. It can, at its discretion, completely ignore any order from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to have direct power over the other branches of government.
You clearly do not understand the three branches of the government.
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.
- 
