Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-28-2016, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,925 posts, read 25,858,124 times
Reputation: 15454

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobisinthehouse View Post
Congratulations England you all won after all. Our political system is no different from 1776. We let people called supreme court justices say, this is what you need to believe, like it or not.
Do you have any specific examples or just complaining, did some renegade tax us without representation?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-28-2016, 06:51 PM
 
Location: Sonoran Desert
38,982 posts, read 50,947,172 times
Reputation: 28173
A handful of judges don't just make up stuff and change the laws. Cases take years to get to the SC and are heard by everything from magistrates to circuit courts to appellate courts and so on. The fact that cases are in the SC means that people and judges disagree on the issue. It's not just you and your point of view. There is conflict and judges decide. At all these levels, previous decisions are the most important consideration. The judges don't usually act on controversial culture issues unless forced to by differing decisions in lower courts. But judges also consider changes in the culture of the country so things like school desegregation and interracial marriage can end up being landmark decisions. If you find that you are most frequently on the losing end of decisions consider two things. First, does it really matter or affect your life in a quantifiable way? Second, maybe you are just way out of touch with changing values in society and you need to get with the program.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,498,517 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredcop111 View Post
Well when Hillary wins she will get her left wing nut job justices. They will have rulings that will give more power to the executive branch. Queen Hillary will make all the illegals legal. She will ban all sorts of firearms and magazine capacity. The perpetually offended will be running this country.
POTUS nominates. The Senate either confirms or rejects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 06:55 PM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,664 posts, read 25,525,030 times
Reputation: 24363
You know you are in trouble when judges are ruling about something the Republicans want and the news reports they were appointed by Democrats. We had a ruling on voter I. D. and it is rumored they ruled without even listening to the evidence the Republican lawyers had to offer.

Roe vs. Wade was reported to be decided without considering at what point a baby could live on it own.

The thing I find the most threatening is when the court ignores the vote of the public. I think public vote should trump anything they perceive as unconstitutional unless that thing they call unconstitutional is specifically stated in the constitution. Declaring something unconstitutional that is only in the opinion of the judge is doing exactly what you stated. A person is invalidating the vote of the public saying we can no longer be in charge of our country. That in my opinion is against our constitution because it is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Not of the judge, by the judge and for the judge. That is the judge overstepping their boundaries.

Most bad and off the wall things going on in this country today was caused by the court system overstepping and overruling the people who are supposed to be making the laws. For instance, many states are allowed to have voter I. D.'s but our state is being singled out and called racist because we want to know that the person voting is really the person whom they say they are. Many places in our state had more votes in elections than they had people registered at that polling place. One man was bragging the day after the election that he had voted 6 times the day before. Our court system is adversely keeping us from having honest and fair elections.

Last edited by NCN; 08-28-2016 at 07:05 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 07:04 PM
 
Location: Long Island
56,925 posts, read 25,858,124 times
Reputation: 15454
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
You know you are in trouble when judges are ruling about something the Republicans want and the news reports they were appointed by Democrats. We had a ruling on voter I. D. and it is rumored they ruled without even listening to the evidence the Republican lawyers had to offer.

Roe vs. Wade was reported to be decided without considering at what point a baby could live on it own.

The thing I find the most threatening is when the court ignores the vote of the public. I think public vote should trump anything they perceive as unconstitutional unless that thing they call unconstitutional is specifically stated in the constitution. Declaring something unconstitutional that is only in the opinion of the judge is doing exactly what you stated. A person is invalidating the vote of the public saying we can no longer be in charge of our country. That in my opinion is against our constitution because it is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the people. Not of the judge, by the judge and for the judge. That is the judge overstepping their boundaries.

Most bad and off the wall things going on in this country today was caused by the court system overstepping and overruling the people who are supposed to be making the laws.
SCOTUS doesn't rule based on popular vote, I doubt if you can know any of their rulings over the past year. The justices are appointed not elected, hopefully you knew that already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 07:17 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,811,085 times
Reputation: 6556
If the SCOTUS rules without using originalism then there's effectively no such thing as constitutional and unconstitutional and the constitution has no meaning itself. It's just 5 judges' says so and super-legislating.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 07:29 PM
 
46,823 posts, read 25,751,383 times
Reputation: 29302
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicalDiscord View Post
Case precedence is an attack on this country, its very purpose is to dismiss the past in favor of molding the future and it is a mob like scheme to ignore the basis of our founding.
Gah! The US legal system is a common law system and case law has always been an integral part of it. The founding fathers knew this, they constructed the legal system around it, and it has never, ever been intended otherwise. (Except for contract and tort law in Louisiana, because reasons.)

If you have a problem with stare decisis, take it up with the founders.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 09:43 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 783,028 times
Reputation: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clarallel View Post
In case you don't know how a monarchy works, the most basic element is that it's ONE person, by heredity, making the decisions. So even if your statement were correct - which it's not - the analogy isn't any good.
I'm not real read or knowledgable on English history, so, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the English government was more decentralized than that even in the 1600s?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 09:56 PM
 
1,478 posts, read 783,028 times
Reputation: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
True, just 5 unelected and lifetime appointed judges can override the Executive, the Legislature and the vote and will of the American people combined, not to mention every other judges in the Judiciary. All based on claiming, the constitution means and doesn't mean what they say it means, just because THEY SAY SO!

It was never the intent of the constitution for the supreme court to be a super-supreme-legislator.
I like how the same Supreme Court Justices of the United States can contradict themselves. Like on one hand saying they can't provide ruling on gay marriage because it's a matter of state rights, then turning around and ruling that states making state constitutional bans on gay marriage violated the US Constitution (Federal Constitution). LOL.

On gun rights the US Supreme Court of the United States set precedence decades ago--I think during the prohibition era--basically ruling the US Constitution only protects citizens rights to own firearms that have a history of US in the military. So, an AR-15 platform assault rifle would arguably fall under the Constitutionally protected right of American citizens to own but something like a .22 caliber pistol might not.

But claiming the US Constitution is "a living document" that does not require amendments to it basically means to to me the document is worthless and can be used to mean whatever the Justices want it to mean.

I wouldn't mind changes so much if people were honest about it and decided they wanted to make amendments. Cool. But I really get tired of politicians and the Justices lying and scheming.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2016, 10:26 PM
 
19,966 posts, read 7,811,085 times
Reputation: 6556
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frogburn View Post
But claiming the US Constitution is "a living document" that does not require amendments to it basically means to to me the document is worthless and can be used to mean whatever the Justices want it to mean.
Agree, the constitution and its amendments have to have an original meaning or the constitution is meaningless. Otherwise the constitution is just a pretext to justify judges' political and social activism which they're not suppose to have in the first place. SCOTUS and the judiciary get involved with way too many things that really have nothing to do with the constitution. Also the judiciary should show deference to the legislator as much as possible and to the popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top