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 here I always thought that the SCOTUS was supposed to determine the constitutionality of Laws. In every case. In fact, I was under the impression that if a case didn't have some Constitutional element--SCOTUS wouldn't even hear it.
I do too. And I like that we have one who straddles the middle. It is a good Court.
I don't like to use the word 'every,' so I'll say --- in the biggest cases, such as ssm, Citizens United, and Obamacare --- there were four automatic liberal votes ... Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer. There were three reliable conservative votes ... Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. Roberts twice and Kennedy once, voted to save Obamacare, ruling a penalty is a tax and a state is not a state. Scalia was correct when he called the ACA SCOTUScare rather than Obamacare, Kennedy was the ssm ruing's deciding vote.
Plus, nobody knows for sure what Gorsuch will be like.
..and here I always thought that the SCOTUS was supposed to determine the constitutionality of Laws. In every case. In fact, I was under the impression that if a case didn't have some Constitutional element--SCOTUS wouldn't even hear it.
The law is free from passion. The thought the those judges would decide on a case based on their own ideology makes me nauseous.
It's funny that the court has the same make up now that it did when Scalia was alive, yet polls show people think it's too conservative. I blame Trump derangement syndrome. If anything, I think we'll see that in some areas Gorsuch is less conservative than Scalia.
In any case, the court seems to have shifted its focus, imo. It's not so much an issue of conservative or liberal, as it is a willingness to legislate from the bench, and that's not one-sided. I do think the lower courts have a liberal majority.
I mean, I tend to think un-ideological judges are better, but that's also entirely unrealistic.
The courts exist for a reason; to reflect on the constitutionality of laws and courts cases. I do not agree with the "originalist" idea. I think the constitution should be viewed as written, but obviously, that doesn't always mean 1789. If it did, they'd just have a constitution. But they don't; they have 9 people in robes there to read it and make the call on our behalf.
I have trouble coming up with decisions in recent history that were decided by conservative judicial activism.
Citizens United? That was an example of judicial activism by normally originalist/textualist SCOTUS justices.
Also, Roy Moore's career on the bench was an example of conservative judicial activism.
The Lochner era wasn't recent history but that was an era of living constitutionalism for conservative ends (although TBF it also saw the beginning of the SCOTUS weighing in on civil rights issues)
There are conservatives who are not originalists or textualists even today. Moore, John Yoo, and Janice Rogers Brown being examples. Likewise there are liberal originalists/textualists. although I can't think of any who are on the bench as opposed to being law professors.
The Framers of the Constitution have been dead for a couple of centuries. They couldn't possibly have known what would take place at later times in our country and they realized it. That's why they also established a supreme court, to interpret how the basic principles of the Constitution would apply to changing times, throughout the future. Your ideas about the Constitution are just like fundamentalists who say that the literal word of the bible must be observed for all time (overlooking that the modern forms of the languages we use today, did not exist when it was written).
Everything has to be reinterpreted as societies and languages change over the ages, to remain appropriate. We do not have to live as slaves to the decrees of the past, as we can think things out for ourselves, as we go along. There wouldn't be much point in the lives of people in each new generation, if that wasn't done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
There's no indication of that whatsoever. Read the oath Supreme Court Justices take. They swear to defend and support the US Constitution, NOT "re-interpret" it.
The only way to defend and support our constitution, is to fit it to our current world. If it was restricted to the literal interpretation its words carried over 200 years ago, it would become progressively incomplete and would fail. Without a functional constitution, where would we be? Does not the fact that it has been amended many times and reinterpreted continually, mean nothing? It can't be denied that it is a never-ending work in progress. And why would we want it to not be that way? To serve the selfish interests of arch-conservatives?
supreme court justices are there to apply the constitution to the law. right now the court doesnt do enough of that.
Some say they do to much of it.
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.
