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 think it is time that I suggest that a number of you folks read the Constitution, especially, in this case, Article III. I will very laboriously type it here for your ease in reading.
Article III
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Suprem Court, and in such inferior courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Okay, the Founders created a Supreme Court that according to its title is the supremest court in the land. They created only one court, the Supreme Court and left it up to the Congress to create any inferior courts they may deem needed.
When people talk about the Supreme Court getting a pass they prove to me that they don't really know what it is all about. That court was created with the express duty of comparing laws, old or new, to the Constitution to determine whether it is constitutional or not.
The 5 - 4 decision is by far the most usual although sometimes we get 6 -3 decisions also. With the present court I believe that 5 - 4 will be the most common. Look at the makeup of the court. All three of those women have been considered liberal in their beliefs so they will disagree with the three judges who are considered very conservative, or as I see them, constitutionalists.
At any rate seldom will there be a 9 - 0 vote about anything. The most important thing here is that this Court was created as the only body that could force the other two branches to not try to go too far. Recently the Supreme Court's powers have been diminished, largely because so many people don't want them to enforce separation of powers. That separation is one of the most basic things in the Constitution. The Executive branch is supposed to enforce laws, the legislative branch enacts laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws and actions from the other two.
This crap about the Supreme Court getting a pass is so silly when we see the President using the Executive Order as a means of legislating. Worse yet, is executive agencies making the kinds of rules and regulations like the EPA has made since that one Congressional law was passed. Recently the EPA has almost made the Congress irrelevant on many things. It is time for someone to force the Court to determine some of the EPA crap to be crap and push it aside.
When the people stop accepting the rulings of the Supreme Court and wanting either of the other branches to take over the powers of the Court we are in a peck of trouble.
The suggestion of the OP in the first post that we have a higher court with a higher number of judges than 9 would do nothing to straighten things out. When you start stacking them up you are in trouble. In fact, that is impossible because to do that kind of thing you need to amend the Constitution. Maybe this is the reason so many of the left lean want to do away with the Constitution.
The 5 - 4 decision is by far the most usual although sometimes we get 6 -3 decisions also. With the present court I believe that 5 - 4 will be the most common. Look at the makeup of the court. All three of those women have been considered liberal in their beliefs so they will disagree with the three judges who are considered very conservative, or as I see them, constitutionalists.
At any rate seldom will there be a 9 - 0 vote about anything. The most important thing here is that this Court was created as the only body that could force the other two branches to not try to go too far. Recently the Supreme Court's powers have been diminished, largely because so many people don't want them to enforce separation of powers. That separation is one of the most basic things in the Constitution. The Executive branch is supposed to enforce laws, the legislative branch enacts laws and the judicial branch interprets the laws and actions from the other two.
Every judge and justice in the country considers themselves to be a constitutionalist. The interpretation of the Constitution that you and like minded folk believe in is not the only valid one.
Besides that minor point, your "stats" you've cited here are actually quite far wrong. 5-4 is absolutely not the "most usual" decision. The most common outcome of cases is unanimity, albeit less so under the Roberts Court than previously.
Quote:
The Court split 5-4 in 16 out of 802 cases during OT10 (20%).3 Going into OT10, the Roberts Court, OT05-present, has split 5-4 in 22% of cases. The number of 5-4 opinions from previous Terms are: 16 of 86 cases (19%) in OT09); 24 of 80 cases (30%) in OT08; 12 of 69 cases (17%) in OT07; 24 of 72 cases (33%) in OT06; and 11 of 82 cases (13%) in OT05.
Of this Term’s 75 signed opinions and 5 summary reversals, 18 (23%) were completely unanimous – meaning there were no concurring opinions – and 38 out of 80 (48%) had at least a unanimous judgment. From OT05-OT09, the Court reached a unanimous judgment in about 41% of cases.
Some of the more well known decisions will split 5-4, and that's where the perception comes from that 5-4 decisions are the most common, but it hides the fact that there are a larger number of cases that are decided unanimously, and a lot of the time those cases never become big news.
Some of the more well known decisions will split 5-4, and that's where the perception comes from that 5-4 decisions are the most common, but it hides the fact that there are a larger number of cases that are decided unanimously, and a lot of the time those cases never become big news.
and you are also overstating it as well. MOST of the cases that get bumped up to the SCOTUS level are actually never heard or even decided on and dismissed.
Since the supreme court has turned from what it's supposed to be, A court dedicated to upholding the constitution, to a partisan political court that rules according to it's political ideology it has become useless. It does not interperate the law but makes law. That is not it's purpose and because of that fact it reduces democracy and freedom in the worst way. Some of the courts recent decisions are just beyond stupid. "Citizens united" for example.
I really like what our Canadian constitution did to prevent the supreme court from making law. There is a clause in our constitution called the "Not withstanding clause". If the supreme court rules against a law passed by the government the government can say that, Not withstanding the decision of the court we the elected government of the country declare this law stands. The law then becomes legal for a period of 5 years at which time the not withstanding status must be renewed. This clause is open for the federal and all provincial governments to use if necessary. Because the Justices know that the politicians have this remedy open to them they decide cases on the law and not on partisan positions. They do not want to be overturned. Since this provision has been in place since 1982 there has been only one single use of the clause in the entire country. This was the Quebec government not withstanding the supreme courts decision on bill 101 the Quebec language law. This law is clearly unconstitutional but at the same time I really don't object to it as it's just Quebec's attempt to preserve their culture and language in the middle of a sea of almost 350 million English speakers.
Since the supreme court has turned from what it's supposed to be, A court dedicated to upholding the constitution, to a partisan political court that rules according to it's political ideology it has become useless. It does not interperate the law but makes law
and you wouldn't mind backing up this apparent lie.
It feels to me that most Americans seem to just take the judgements of the Supreme Court as if they are handed down from god himself. It seems like, once the Supreme Court rules on something, everyone just throws up their hands like thats just the way things are and theres nothing we can do about it.
And maybe that is the case, but why is that the case? Why is the Supreme Court basically unquestionable in the eyes of the public, while every other piece of government is scrutinized and many times overturned?
Why is that people allow five unelected men, who are handed lifetime appointments on the Supreme Court to dictate their lives for them? Isn't the Supreme Court the closest thing to an oligarchy that we have in this country?
It would be different if the Supreme Court was consistent in any way shape or form, but they just aren't. Look at the voting records, half the time it seems like the decisions are 5-4. Basically, half the court disagrees with the other half. Why don't you people see that the Supreme Court is nothing more than the legislature, it isn't special or unique. They vote their beliefs and ideologies.
As an exercise, I pulled the last 10 court cases dealing with the commerce clause.
United States v. Morrison - 5-4. First ruling was overruled, and that ruling was subsequently overruled.
Reno v. Condon - 9-0 for. The first and second rulings were both against, which were later somehow overruled unanimously by the Supreme court.
United States v. Lopez - 5-4 against(thus overruling the "gun-free school zones act").
C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York - 6-3 for.
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota - 8-1 for.
Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority - 5-4 for. The Supreme court overruled both of the previous rulings.
Building Trades & Construction Trades Council of Camden County and Vicinity v. Mayor and Council of the City of Camden - 8-1 for. The first courts decision was overruled.
Kassel v. Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware - 6-3 for(sort of).
Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co - 6-1-1 against(Powell dissented/concurred in parts, one abstaining).
Fullilove v. Klutznick - 5-4 for. This was probably the most ridiculous case of them all, it setup the basis that Congress had the power to use its spending powers in an unfair manner in an attempt to right past discrimination.
Of the past 10 commerce clause cases, four(40%) went 5-4... Why exactly? Primarily they are arguing about a judicial theory called the "Dormant commerce clause", which was not part of the constitution but has been basically created by Supreme Court justices to further their policing powers.
There are so many important Supreme court cases go 5-4 its ridiculous. Overturning the gun ban in Chicago, 5-4. The recent Wal-Mart case sex discrimination case, 5-4. Overturning the ban on violent video games in California, 5-4. And almost every Civil Rights case and affirmative-action case has been decided 5-4, all the way back to the Slaughterhouse cases of 1873.
Why is it that Americans seem to so readily allow five unelected, life-termed men to dictate what is and what isn't permissable, seemingly without question?
This is a good representation of how the court system actually works.
What are the alternatives? I would personally rather the states deal with their own issues. Then if a bunch of jackasses sitting on the California courts decide to interpret the constitution in some biased and ideological way(and they will), I can move to Arizona or vice versa. I despise this unquestioned judicial dictatorship we have now in Washington, that keeps reinterpreting the constitution to mean whatever they want to mean.
Living document my ass.
Let's go back to Elementary School for a minute...
There are 3 branches of Government: Executive, Legislative and Judicial.
The Supreme Court is the top of the Judicial branch, like the President in the Executive branch or the states in the Legislative branch. Each has the purpose of making and enforcing the rules with the eventual goal of making (and keeping) the country successful as a whole.
Of course, power historically tends to go to people's heads and lead to pain, grief, suffering and other such unpleasantries, so each branch has various powers that undermine and countermand the powers of the other two. In this way the power balance is (in theory) maintained, since nobody holds all the cards. It's like a three legged stool; cut one leg off and the whole thing falls down. That's why we can't just get rid of the supreme court.
Next lesson: Entropy. Everything degrades over time. "All we are is dust in the wind" as the song goes. Instutions of government are still subject to the laws of nature and the Founding Fathers knew that, so the Constitution is designed as a Living Document that can be changed. If it couldn't, it would naturally become irrelevant over time. It's true that change can be for the worst, but no change at all is the same as change for the worst. It's a necessary risk.
You've got to realize that law is not "god-given"; it's made-up by humans as we go. If you don't accept our made-up system, you can only accept someone else's made up system.
So, do you want a government where nobody is too powerful (our system)?
One where only a few at the top have all the power (Fascism, Communism, Monarchy, ect)?
and you are also overstating it as well. MOST of the cases that get bumped up to the SCOTUS level are actually never heard or even decided on and dismissed.
Of course you're right, only a tiny percentage of appeals to the Supreme Court are granted cert every year. But of those cases where the Supreme Court grants certiorari, a larger number are decided unanimously than are decided by a 5-4 opinion.
It feels to me that most Americans seem to just take the judgements of the Supreme Court as if they are handed down from god himself.
Right off the bat I can't take your post seriously. SCOTUS rulings are argued over and debated passionately by the public, the media and the blogosphere. Especially if it involves a social issue. Just go back to March when they ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church picketing soldier's funerals, or more recently when they ruled in favor of Walmart.
Sure, lots of stuff that is important only to the parties involved slips by the media, but just wait till Obamacare goes the the Supreme Court.
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.
