View Full Version : Democracy?
Why do we insist on proclaiming democracy in this country when it seems that the Supreme Court always takes the side of the minority: i.e. "god", pornography, etc?
BTW: I do know that this is not a "true, absolute democracy", so please don't go there.:mad:
Sacamuelas
06-30-2004, 06:38
Well, damn QRQ30..if we can't argue that it will make it much more difficult to get everyone fired up and posting. ;)
Are you against the SCOTUS ruling simply because it happens to favor the porn industryin this case, or are you against the idea of removing government laws that attempt to "parent" our children for us because legislators think every American parent is to stupid/lazy/ignorant to know how to protect their own children?
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
Well, damn QRQ30..if we can't argue that it will make it much more difficult to get everyone fired up and posting. ;)
Are you against the SCOTUS ruling simply because it happens to favor the porn industryin this case, or are you against the idea of removing government laws that attempt to "parent" our children for us because legislators think every American parent is to stupid/lazy/ignorant to know how to protect their own children?
HMMM! I'm not against the SCOTUS per se. They are there, after all, to prevent another branch becoming dictatorial. But it does seem that many of their decisions go against what the majority would want. Perhaps porno was a bad example. How about some of the really obnoxious decisions about "Church and State>'
I want to play the devil's advocate here by saying that, taking a realistic view of society like many of the founding fathers, people are generally not intelligent, not well educated, and certainly not politically minded. For this reason, an enlightened body such as the SCOTUS SHOULD make decisions for the better of society, even if they do not go with what the 'ignorant masses' would desire.
Solid
Gee Soild: Does that mean that the ignorant citizenry voted in an ignorant president and an ignorant legislature who in turn appoint and confirm ignorant judges to make ignorant decisions?:D :D
(Continuing to play Devil's Advocate) As you said, this is a Republic/limited Democracy. The "ignorant masses" do not directly vote (this is my understanding, at least) for President. The House of Representatives, all of whom are people who are well educated, politically minded, and intelligent (at least when compared to the masses) also have some say.
Furthermore, the ignorant masses are SO ignorant that they can be pushed and pulled into voting for the 'right' candidate because that candidate will be smarter than them. The effect is to have some very sneaky and smart people governing a majority of ignorant people. These sneaks then make decisions based on the good of this country, not what the people 'think' they want.
:D
Solid
Team Sergeant
06-30-2004, 10:42
Originally posted by QRQ 30
Gee Soild: Does that mean that the ignorant citizenry voted in an ignorant president and an ignorant legislature who in turn appoint and confirm ignorant judges to make ignorant decisions?:D :D
QRQ,
They are when the voted slick willie in the second time. And they will again when millions vote for kerry and his bitch vice pres choice.
VICE PRESIDENT HILLARY; SPECULATION INTENSIFIES IN WASHINGTON
http://www.drudgereport.com
TD: I think Hillary has her sights set on 2008. Running for VP today wouldn't helt that ambition.
Now, a serious question. The legislature and executive branchs oversee each other and keep each other in check. Who, if anyone, oversees the Judiciary. Are they on the way to becoming the final authority in this country?:confused:
I thought that their power was inherently limited- they can only rule on certain things in specific cases? Also, they are politically appointed.
Solid
Sacamuelas
06-30-2004, 12:22
The legislature can ammend the constitution and overrule the SCOTUS decisions. :munchin
Kyobanim
06-30-2004, 13:06
I was always under the impression that SCOTUS just interpreted the laws created by the legislative branch; Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution. So they are interpreting the Constitution.
So if they are going against what the majority wants then that would mean that the majority wants a law that is against the Constitution as it is in its current form.
Ammend the Constitution.
(Long winded version of what Saca said)
Airbornelawyer
06-30-2004, 16:40
Originally posted by Sacamuelas
The legislature can ammend the constitution and overrule the SCOTUS decisions. :munchin No, it can't.
Congress can propose amendments, but it takes a supermajority of 2/3rds of both the House and Senate. States can call a convention to propose amendments, but again, it takes 2/3rds of state legislatures to do so. Once an amendment is properly proposed, it must be ratified by 3/4ths of the states. Then an amendment becomes a part of the Constitution. Ten amendments were adopted on December 15, 1791, having been passed by Congress and proposed to the States in 1789. Since then, 17 more amendments have been added (one of which repealed an earlier amendment).
The last one added was in 1992. This last one was actually one of those approved by Congress in 1789. While the first ten amendments took 2 years to get ratified by 3/4ths of the states, this one took over 202 years.
AL,
In your opinion, is the SCOTUS sufficiently limited by 'checks and balances'?
Thank you,
Solid
Airbornelawyer
06-30-2004, 17:17
Originally posted by Solid
AL,
In your opinion, is the SCOTUS sufficiently limited by 'checks and balances'?
Thank you,
Solid No.
Roguish Lawyer
06-30-2004, 18:21
Originally posted by Airbornelawyer
No.
Why not?
What would you change to fix the problem?
Sacamuelas
06-30-2004, 20:01
Thanks AL... I stand corrected from my recollection of 9th grade civics class.
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Why not?
What would you change to fix the problem? Good question. Dunno!!
Airbornelawyer
07-01-2004, 00:25
Why do I always have to give the long replies? Can't I be like Nancy and just say no once in a while?
OK, the formal system of checks and balances is insufficient to limit the Court. For all intents and purposes, once you are on the Court there is only one - impeachment. When was a S. Ct. justice last impeached?
The main restraints on the Supreme Court are informal. One is the self-imposed restraint, seen in Newdow and Padilla, to avoid interpreting the Constitution when a controversy can be addressed by a method with less gravity such as standing or statutory interpretation. But this depends entirely on the self-restraint of the Justices. Another is caseload. The Supreme Court can only hear so many cases a term, and since it has original jurisdiction over certain classes of controversies, it must hear those cases, or not at all. So, many cases from the circuits never get to the Show. Cert denied.
Possible formal changes to the system? End life tenure. Limit the original jurisdiction of inferior courts. Amend the Constitution to remove the Court's jurisdiction over Constitutional cases and have two Supreme Courts - one to hear cases and controversies among states, etc. (those categories in Art. III that don't involve issues, but parties) and one to serve as an advisory body to the Congress and President on Constitutional matters. Each has its pluses and minuses, but I leave it to you all to flesh these out, or make your own proposals. I have an M&A to close.
VMI_Marine
07-01-2004, 04:50
Originally posted by Kyobanim
I was always under the impression that SCOTUS just interpreted the laws created by the legislative branch; Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws, how they are applied, and whether they break the rules of the Constitution. So they are interpreting the Constitution.
They do interpret the laws. However, I think the issue is that the legal precedents they set often make them very close to being a law-making body in and of themselves. They don't have near the kind of accountability to the American public that the actual law-makers have.
Kyobanim
07-01-2004, 05:23
Originally posted by VMI_Marine
They do interpret the laws. However, I think the issue is that the legal precedents they set often make them very close to being a law-making body in and of themselves.
If that's the case then the fault lies with Congress. For all the lawyers Congress has, you'd think that they would do their own vetting of a new law against the Constitution.
They don't have near the kind of accountability to the American public that the actual law-makers have.
I usually sit in the middle politically. I really haven't seen all that many judgements, or whatever they're called, that were out of line once you threw out the politics of the situation and looked at it from a neutral point of view. Sure there's been a few questionable calls and if I was a political animal I can see where I'd be pissed about them, but the Constitution isn't about "me", it's about the United States and it's future.
IMO, of course.