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.
A jury is a trier of fact. Judges tell the jury what the law is. The jury finds facts and applies the law to those facts *as that law is explained to them by the judge.* So the Supreme Court does not act as a jury. When laws are challenged as unconstitutional, the courts must apply legal principles to make a decision on the case before them. Under what I hear as your proposal (either 9-0 or any challenged law fails), we would end up with no laws.
In the case of the supreme court there is no jury. They are the jury.
Why have more than one judge then. Why 9 like they are an appointed jury panel.
Should their be doubt, when discussing the constitutionality of issues? Or should there be absolutely no doubt about letting government lean and take liberty? The same as convicting someone and taking their liberty.
The negatives have already been explained, but you have chosen to ignore them......
No really, the negatives as examples, were how the court decides now, with a slim majority along party lines.
I have not heard of one negative, of the supreme court as a jury and only unanimous decisions are constitutional. All I have heard is that it would not work. But no examples for review as to why it would not work, to preserve more liberty for us, the people.
If there is doubt, would you want government going ahead and doing it? Same as doubt if someone is guilty, with 7 jurors saying yes and 5 saying no, so off to the death penalty for them.
No really, the negatives as examples, were how the court decides now, with a slim majority along party lines.
I have not heard of one negative, of the supreme court as a jury and only unanimous decisions are constitutional. All I have heard is that it would not work. But no examples for review as to why it would not work, to preserve more liberty for us, the people.
If there is doubt, would you want government going ahead and doing it? Same as doubt if someone is guilty, with 7 jurors saying yes and 5 saying no, so off to the death penalty for them.
The SC is ruling soon on the constitutionality of Texas laws that impose new, more stringent requirements on abortion clinics. Do I have this right ? Under your idea, it would take an 8-0 vote to uphold those laws ?
The SC is ruling soon on the constitutionality of Texas laws that impose new, more stringent requirements on abortion clinics. Do I have this right ? Under your idea, it would take an 8-0 vote to uphold those laws ?
It would take an 8-0 vote that it is constitutional for the federal government to force states to comply. No doubt would be the goal.
A 7-1 would fail, just like a hung jury fails and the state keeps doing what it is doing.
Why don't courts convict people of crime, on a hung jury? Why does a jury have to be unanimous, but decisions on constitutionality, only a majority decision? Leaving doubt it is even constitutional to do.
Supreme and lower federal courts are for the government harming the people, on a constitutional issue, as is the topic...
I feel it should be the same, when a state is called out for breaking their constitution.
Not saying that is how it is.... Majority rules. But for the sake of liberty on constitutional issues, I personally feel it should be like a jury. Where it takes a unanimous decision, to convict. to remove all doubt.
Civil suits can, and do, end up before the Supreme Court. Sometimes they include constitutional issues. Other times they involve federal law. Still other times they involve citizens of two different states.
The Supreme Court is (virtually always) an appellate court. They decide if the court below made a mistake of law. They are typically the second (sometimes 3rd) appellate review available in a lawsuit.
Constitutional issues, when raised in a case where they can't be avoided, have to be decided for one side or the other. You can't refuse to decide them. "Refusing" to decide them simply decides them in a particular way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow
In the case of the supreme court there is no jury. They are the jury.
Why have more than one judge then. Why 9 like they are an appointed jury panel.
Should their be doubt, when discussing the constitutionality of issues? Or should there be absolutely no doubt about letting government lean and take liberty? The same as convicting someone and taking their liberty.
There is no jury at the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court is not a trier of fact. They are evaluating underlying decisions to determine whether the law was correctly decided. They are not the jury because they do not find the facts of a case. The constitutional issues before them are issues of law, not fact.
Why don't courts convict people of crime, on a hung jury? Why does a jury have to be unanimous, but decisions on constitutionality, only a majority decision? Leaving doubt it is even constitutional to do.
You don't seem to understand. The recent decision for instance that the Cops could use evidence collected from a suspect who was illegally stopped but had a traffic warrant would have reverted to holding the stop unconstitutional. That was the ruling of the state supreme court. And that can often be the case. If you disable a non unanimous court you end up with that happening all over the states and suddenly Constitutional guarantees are whatever the state courts say they are.
Do we really want a system where the Federal Constitution varies between the States?
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.
