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.
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.
The Dormant Commerce Clause is more than just a creation of the "Supreme Court justices to further their policing powers." There are restrictions placed upon the States concerning international and interstate commerce under Article I, Sections 9 & 10 of the US Constitution. This power to regulate international and interstate commerce was specifically granted to Congress.
Additionally, if one state could enact a law that effectively nullifies Congress' authority to regulate interstate or international commerce, then why did they bother giving Congress the power at all?
The biggest problem, with regard to the Commerce Clause, came during the National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. 1 in 1937 which held that when intrastate commerce has a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce, Congress may regulate the activity. As a result of this ruling, between 1937 and 1995 the Court did not strike down a single federal statute as exceeding the powers granted Congress in the Commerce Clause.
All that changed in U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Justice Thomas said it best in his concurring decision.
Quote:
We have said that Congress may regulate not only "Commerce . . . among the several States," U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, but also anything that has a "substantial effect" on such commerce. This test, if taken to its logical extreme, would give Congress a "police power" over all aspects of American life. Unfortunately, we have never come to grips with this implication of our substantial effects formula. Although we have supposedly applied the substantial effects test for the past 60 years, we always have rejected readings of the Commerce Clause and the scope of federal power that would permit Congress to exercise a police power; our cases are quite clear that there are real limits to federal power.
The chief division in the court now is between those who continue to apply the "substantial effects" test and those who consider that authority over-reaching and infringing upon the States. The struggle is primarily between those who want to give the federal government more authority, and those who want to give the States more authority. This is why the decisions are so close.
With regard to your other statements, you need to read Article III of the US Constitution. Congress has oversight of the courts, just as they have oversight of the Executive Branch. And yes, Congress has impeached Supreme Court justices, Samuel Chase for example. Supreme Court justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior", and Congress is the judge of that behavior.
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.
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.
It appears that I don't know the definition of unanimous. I don't think the unanimous votes outnumbered the 5 -4 ones by much in this last session but then maybe unanimous is anything larger than 5-4.
9 - 0 is unanimous isn't it?
How many of the really serious cases are ever unanimous? I think that with those 3 women and the 3 latest men appointed it will never be very many.
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.
I should have mentioned that but thank you for doing it. I am not sure how many here know that.
The Dormant Commerce Clause is more than just a creation of the "Supreme Court justices to further their policing powers." There are restrictions placed upon the States concerning international and interstate commerce under Article I, Sections 9 & 10 of the US Constitution. This power to regulate international and interstate commerce was specifically granted to Congress.
Additionally, if one state could enact a law that effectively nullifies Congress' authority to regulate interstate or international commerce, then why did they bother giving Congress the power at all?
The biggest problem, with regard to the Commerce Clause, came during the National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel, 301 U.S. 1 in 1937 which held that when intrastate commerce has a "substantial economic effect" on interstate commerce, Congress may regulate the activity. As a result of this ruling, between 1937 and 1995 the Court did not strike down a single federal statute as exceeding the powers granted Congress in the Commerce Clause.
All that changed in U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). Justice Thomas said it best in his concurring decision.
The chief division in the court now is between those who continue to apply the "substantial effects" test and those who consider that authority over-reaching and infringing upon the States. The struggle is primarily between those who want to give the federal government more authority, and those who want to give the States more authority. This is why the decisions are so close.
With regard to your other statements, you need to read Article III of the US Constitution. Congress has oversight of the courts, just as they have oversight of the Executive Branch. And yes, Congress has impeached Supreme Court justices, Samuel Chase for example. Supreme Court justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior", and Congress is the judge of that behavior.
Chase was impeached but the Senate refused to throw him out kind of like in the case of Bill Clinton. Chase was the only Supreme Court justice to be impeached.
The strict constructionists appear to be wrong by most liberals as do the loose constructionists appear to conservatives. It is my thinking that the justices who really do the legislating from the bench are the loose constructionists and vice versa for the stricts.
and you wouldn't mind backing up this apparent lie.
The overwhelming % of them are split on partisan lines completely. You have 5 conservative and 4 liberal justices and if you don't know that you must be living under a rock in Hootersville!
Last edited by CaseyB; 07-11-2011 at 04:09 AM..
Reason: rude
Are you blind, deaf and dumb and never ever pay any attention to SCOTUS decisions. The overwhelming % of them are split on partisan lines completely. You have 5 conservative and 4 liberal justices and if you don't know that you must be living under a rock in Hootersville!
Actually, I'd guess Arus pays more attention to SCOTUS decisions than you do. Nowhere near the "overwhelming & of them" are 5-4.
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.
With regard to your other statements, you need to read Article III of the US Constitution. Congress has oversight of the courts, just as they have oversight of the Executive Branch. And yes, Congress has impeached Supreme Court justices, Samuel Chase for example. Supreme Court justices "shall hold their offices during good behavior", and Congress is the judge of that behavior.
And rulings members of Congress don't agree with DON'T fall into that oversight or ability to impeach.
As I said, if the decisions the op is complaining about had come down with his agreement, I don't think we would have this thread.
I'm 100% positive you would back 5-4 rulings all the way....if the ruling had your approval.
No I would not, and you seem to have absolutely no idea what I actually stand for.
I am generally-speaking a libertarian. But I believe that Chicago has the right to restrict gun ownership in Chicago. I believe that California has the right to pass a law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors(in much the same way we restrict the sale of porn, cigarettes, and alcohol to minors). I believe that the states should be able to make abortion illegal if they choose to. I don't believe Texas should have to recognize other states' same-sex marriage, but I believe that New York has the right to allow same-sex marriages.
What I do believe in, is States' Rights. Not because I believe that the states always get things right, because they don't. But because I believe that the individual states are the best protection against tyranny of a centralized body. I believe as long as you don't have to live-in or travel-to Chicago, or California, or Texas, or whatever, then those states have the rights to do whatever their own constituents believe is best for themselves.
What always bothers me is that, the people have all but forgot about States' rights. They believe that states' rights is some kind of corrupt system that must be checked by a larger body. But why does that make any sense? California and Texas are larger and have populations that exceed almost every sovereign country in Europe. Yet, I doubt many people believe that those small nations of Europe are some despotic tyrannies of oppression, that do evil things to their constituents?
The greatest thing about our country is that, it is even better than Europe in regards of protecting freedom and liberty. Not only are the states intended to be almost completely free of centralized control, but you are always completely free to move from one state to another anytime you feel like it. Don't like what your state is doing? There are 49 more states to choose from. Don't like what the federal government is doing(especially the unquestioned SCOTUS), what options do you have?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arus
You mean where the Court found that it was unconstitutional to restrict access of games targeted to minors from minors?
Did you bother to even READ their decision?
Here is basically a summation of their decision on the case.
"The Act does not comport with the first Amendment... Video Games qualify for First Amendment protection... though the first amendment is subject to a few limited exceptions, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words... This country has no tradition of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence... Though California has shown that violent video games do have a psychological effect on minors, its effects are very small, and they have no more of an effect than other forms of media(like movies, tv, internet, etc)... And since California has declined to restrict access to other forms of media by children, then this restriction is inconsistent."
Which more interpreted means, violence is legal, obscenity is illegal, because historically violence has been legal and obscenity has been illegal, then violence will remain legal and obscenity will remain illegal.
But is that really the case? For instance, a child can't go to a rated R movie without an adult or parent, and a movie can be rated R from just violence or strong language(which are in these video games). So there is a historical basis for prohibiting children from seeing violence without permission from or accompaniment of an adult or parent. I don't see why this case is any different.
Whether or not you agree with the ruling or not, do you really believe that the Supreme court should be deciding such a case? Why couldn't the California courts deal with the case? Does the state of California not believe in free speech or something? Why is it that the almost 40-million people of California and their own functioning court system has to cower to the will of a few men sitting on a Supreme Court 3,000 miles away? Who also have a tradition of legislating their own beliefs rather than actually applying the constitution in any meaningful way. Why else would the decision have ended in basically a 5-4 split?
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy
You are very right but what would you suggest as an amendment to change the powers of the Court?
I so well remember when FDR tried to get the court off the backs of his new agencies who were making laws without including the Congress. He couldn't get control of the court membership so he proposed that we add 6 new justices, all of whom he would get to appoint. That was one of the cheapest shots ever suggested by anyone.
I agree, I don't like how FDR wanted to address the issue. Stacking the court to produce a wanted result would be detrimental to the concept of checks and balances. Of course, isn't that what goes on all the time anyway? For instance FDR appointed a total of 8 justices to the Supreme court in his four terms. In a sense, didn't he really stack the court with liberal judges anyway? If it exists the potential for presidents(with the cooperation of the senate) to stack a court with people who can interpret the constitution anyway they feel like based on their ideology, is the court really interpreting the constitution at all?
There is no way to really restructure the Supreme Court to prevent it becoming just another legislative body. And yes, we do need a Supreme court to interpret the constitution.
The only solution that I can come up with, is decentralization. By limiting the scope of the courts authority, it could prevent such a small group of people from wielding so much power. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?
[quote=bc42gb43;
While many high profile cases do turn out to be 5-4, it is actually more common to see a unanimous or near-unanimous opinion.[/quote]
Yes, the high profile ones that have implications mostly in the broadest sense for the population.
Originally Posted by bc42gb43
"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."
If there is more than one valid interpretation then it had no meaning at all.
It says what it says, anything else is just politics & agendas..
But I believe that Chicago has the right to restrict gun ownership in Chicago.
Well, according to the 2nd Amendment, they don't.
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.
