Quote:
Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale
What drivel. The Supreme Court has the final word. Case closed, whether you like it or not. And it's not a joke.
|
Stop for a minute. Why does the Supreme Court have the final word? Do you even know?
It is a concept called judicial review. And it isn't even in the constitution. Nor did the main author of the constitution(James Madison) agree with judicial review. And the president at the time during Marbury v. Madison(which created judicial review), Thomas Jefferson, believed that if the courts were allowed to be the arbiter of all things constitutional, that they could become the equivalent of an oligarchy.
Here is one of the many things Jefferson said about the Supreme Court...
You seem to consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges … and their power [are] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and are not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves … . When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves. …. — Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept, 1820
Judicial Tyranny was Foreseen by Thomas Jefferson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruin Rick
Of the 9 Justices on the court, 5 of them are so set in their ways that you know how they are going to vote on each case. 4 of them have liberal or conservative tendencies but may actually think about a case before they vote.
|
Look, you are missing the point. I don't know if there are four of five or two or seven or whatever people on the court who are effectively judicial activists. My point is, there are judicial activists on the court, and they don't rule on most cases, they vote, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the constitution.
My point is, I don't understand why we tolerate nine unelected, life-termed people, getting to vote how our society should be run, with basically zero recourse if their ruling was blatantly biased and incorrect.
Go find a list of all 5-4 Supreme Court rulings, I can guarantee you that you will disagree with half of them. So the Supreme Court sends down a 5-4 edict, which could have easily been the other way, had your party been able to stack the court with another judge. What should we do about it? Just follow it and pretend to ourselves that the court is the final word, and nothing can be done to change it?
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.
