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:

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

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

The legislature can ammend the constitution and overrule the SCOTUS decisions. :munchin

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)

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

No.

Why not?

What would you change to fix the problem?