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.
The Supreme Court is supposed to base their ruling on LAW not popular whim. I may disagree with some of their decisions but I prefer to keep them as far away from politics as possible.
Seems like the bit about this "Alliance Coalition" having power to overrule the Supreme Court is mysteriously missing from my copy of the US Constitution.
Bowing to public opinion is a real good way to bring ruination this nation so fast it would make everyone's head spin.
Public opinion can turn 180º in a matter of hours. It's like the wind, constantly shifting in direction and strength. What's favorable today can be completely the reverse tomorrow. Our founding fathers understood this very well. The checks and balances written into the Constitution are both a barrier against the always shifting winds, and a method to slow the strongest down.
Democracy only continues to work for as long as it is difficult. When things become too easy to pass laws, everything in democracies goes to hell in short order, and then the system starts to fall apart. Too much agreement is just as bad as not enough agreement.
Everything in our democracy relies on compromise; that's the only way anything ever happens under our system. When compromise breaks down, so does the government. But so far, only the Civil War was the time when the failure to compromise caused a complete breakdown. And, of all the democracies that have ever existed in the world, only the United States has undergone only one civil war.
The greatest weakness in democracy as a system of government is it's lack of protection of falling into dictatorship. When public opinion takes over, dictatorship always follows.
And then civil war, or a war of expansion, always follows as soon as a dictator comes to power.
History is chock full of examples.
A Supreme Court decision can be overturned. Doing so is intentionally very difficult to accomplish, but it can be done. No fix is needed, especially one that makes overturning easier to do.
There has to be a final decision to all our common laws to make our system work. Laws that are rotten get stopped by the Supreme Court. That's the court's job and they are the final arbiters. But they are all human, so the Constitution provides a way of overturning a Supreme Court that has gone rotten at it's core.
We are seeing the advent of the political left attempting to place liberal minsets on Court Justices with too much power , a court warped by philosophy diametrically opposed to the majority of American opinion. With the terrifying thought of the likes of Hillary Clinton even in the running I feel that the coalitian would only be summoned if the uproar or even anarchy results from the Court misrepresenting the majority of the population. Unfortunately, appealing decisions cannot rest on a vote by Americans as we are not prepared, versed and competent to counter the court it must rest on a wide group of experts in law, analyists ,religious leaders, politicians, social justice . For best results the court would submit their pre decision(s) for review to the coalition via one on one meeting, conference call or a comboTown Hall. My point is to remove the Supreme Court from special interest, spin doctors and extreme leftest maneuvering which has evolved in our modern era.
Lol. Someone is scared of the potential 5 democrat justices that will result if Hillary wins the election.
Interesting how this topic surfaces shortly after Trump wins the path to the GOP nomination.
We are seeing the advent of the political left attempting to place liberal minsets on Court Justices with too much power , a court warped by philosophy diametrically opposed to the majority of American opinion. With the terrifying thought of the likes of Hillary Clinton even in the running I feel that the coalitian would only be summoned if the uproar or even anarchy results from the Court misrepresenting the majority of the population. ...
Bowing to public opinion is a real good way to bring ruination this nation so fast it would make everyone's head spin.
Seconded. I think it was P.J. O'Rourke who said that it would take one well-executed media campaign to make Americans vote to give up the Rights of Man to help the missing kids on milk cartons.
Gee............................ I wish they would actually do that, rather than enact legislation from the bench.
Because of state decisis, any decision they make is legislating.
for example the ACA where they held the Medicare expansion was unconstitutional based on the Spending Clause, that opinion means that at somewhere between a 5% (Dole) and a 20% (Sebelius) is not coercion, but beyond 20% is. Or in other words it's now precedent that 20% reduction in federal funding is coercing states based on the Spending Clause.
It's always legislating. Judges necessarily make law, it's the common law system.
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.
]
