The most dangerous branch of government

[TexasWife25]

I was having a discussion with a friend who is a strict constitutionalists about the Supreme Court, when he stated " the most dangerous branch of government is the Supreme Court".


He is voting Romney specifically because of his fear of an "overreaching Supreme Court"

Thoughts? SC becoming too powerful?

 

[blobfish]

Sorry, but your friend is an idiot. He's an idiot for saying that the Supreme Court is a branch of the government, and he is a humongous idiot for being a strict Constitutionalist and then voting for Romney.

That said, the answer to your question is no. The Supreme Court is not more powerful now than it used to be. The problem is that they are all rabid partisans who couldn't give two shits about the Constitution.

 

[TorontoBoyWest]

Sorry, but your friend is an idiot. He's an idiot for saying that the Supreme Court is a branch of the government, and he is a humongous idiot for being a strict Constitutionalist and then voting for Romney.

That said, the answer to your question is no. The Supreme Court is not more powerful now than it used to be. The problem is that they are all rabid partisans who couldn't give two shits about the Constitution.

SCOTUS is just as much a branch of government as your local PD.

 

[blobfish]

SCOTUS is just as much a branch of government as your local PD.

The branches of government are executive, legislative and judicial. The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch. My local police department is not part of any of those three branches, as it is not directly governed by the federal government.

 

[pete]

I was having a discussion with a friend who is a strict constitutionalists about the Supreme Court, when he stated " the most dangerous branch of government is the Supreme Court".


He is voting Romney specifically because of his fear of an "overreaching Supreme Court"

Thoughts? SC becoming too powerful?

i think their power is overexaggerated. they can only issue opinions on cases that are brought to them, and so are limited as to what they can say. also, it's not like they vote with any consistancy that can be relied upon, so there's no "slam-dunk" with what they'll hand down.

BO's making a case for the executive branch being the most powerful, the way he's been circumventing the checks and balances of congress by issuing executive orders.

 

[Sean Renaud]

You're friend ::reads other posts. . .slowly backs out of thread.::

 

[TexasWife25]

LOL!

Well, I agree the SC has more power now then it was intended to have. However I disagree with his worry over "activist judges"(Which i hear a lot about from the RW on lit). I dont see anyone making up laws, or pulling new meanings out of the asses, but taking old laws, and implying their intention to modern society.

 

[run_silent]

I was having a discussion with a friend who is a strict constitutionalists about the Supreme Court, when he stated " the most dangerous branch of government is the Supreme Court".


He is voting Romney specifically because of his fear of an "overreaching Supreme Court"

Thoughts? SC becoming too powerful?

Well, I guess it depends on how you feel about the decisions they make. The Constitution is there and says what it says and that is what the court should decide on. If you don't like the constitution have congress change the law.

 

[TorontoBoyWest]

The branches of government are executive, legislative and judicial. The Supreme Court is part of the judicial branch. My local police department is not part of any of those three branches, as it is not directly governed by the federal government.

Explain how the local PD is not part of the Judicial Branch.

Go.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Explain how the local PD is not part of the Judicial Branch.

Go.

Lordy

 

[blobfish]

Explain how the local PD is not part of the Judicial Branch.

Go.

Firstly, police departments are overseen by state and/or local governments, not the feds. Secondly, the judicial branch deals with the court system of the United States.

 

[Wrong Element]

I was having a discussion with a friend who is a strict constitutionalists about the Supreme Court, when he stated " the most dangerous branch of government is the Supreme Court".


He is voting Romney specifically because of his fear of an "overreaching Supreme Court"

Thoughts? SC becoming too powerful?

Huh. We have the same fear, but a somewhat different response.


The Court has the same power it has always had. But the smart justices know that their moral authority and legitimacy derive from a belief that they're something more than mere politicians. It appears that several members of the current Court have forgotten that.

 

[TexasWife25]

Huh. We have the same fear, but a somewhat different response.


The Court has the same power it has always had. But the smart justices know that their moral authority and legitimacy derive from a belief that they're something more than mere politicians. It appears that several members of the current Court have forgotten that.

Its the individual mandate, he views it as unconstitutional, and any judge who votes to uphold it, is in his book, making law, instead of following the constitution.

While I don't feel that way, I do think Obama lost support from independents with the mandate.

 

[Liar]

Best definition of an activist court I've heard is that it's a soccer referee who can't stop himself from kicking the ball. A judge should call the shots that are in front of him or her. Answer the question that a case is asking. No more, no less. Answers will sometimes be biased, that's just human nature, and even judges put on their pants one leg at the time. (Unless they're commando under there, but let's not go there.) It's when the answers, the court ruling, goes beyond what the question actually asked, that's when you have an activist ruling.

This is what some claim happened w. Citizens United for instance. The SCOTUS was asked "Can we do diz?" and they said "Yep". Which woulda been fine. But then they said "Furthermore..."

No idea if that's accurate for the case, haven't read the ruling myself and it would probably make my ears bleed if I tried.

But if it is, that is jucidial activism as I see it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Huh. We have the same fear, but a somewhat different response.


The Court has the same power it has always had. But the smart justices know that their moral authority and legitimacy derive from a belief that they're something more than mere politicians. It appears that several members of the current Court have forgotten that.

I think they all consider themselves above politics. Lay-people tend to politicize the court and give a political identity to individual justices based on that lay-persons political bent.

Scalia absolutely believes his opinion is free of politics. Those on the right agree, those on the left disagree.

 

[coachdb18]

Government itself is the danger to the people it should serve. Our Constitution was given to us by the Founders as our protection against it, and the abuses inherent in government.

Now, ask yourself this question about an 'individual mandate', and see if you still support the premise that the government can make you buy something you don't want. Suppose just for a moment that the current Marxist President is replaced with a highly right wing alternative. The pendulum having swung the other direction, that President decides healthcare includes defending yourself from bodily harm, and requiires every citizen to buy and carry a handgun, or pay a penalty to the IRS at tax time. Just as has been advanced to ban various drink sizes or popcorn volumes, so he decides to use government power to not only allow, but enforce the second amendment.

How would the specific application of what is being mandated affect your views?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Lincoln ignored the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has no enforcement arm. I mean, what they gonna do if the President flips them off? Sulk?

The prestige of the Court prolly acts as a brake on civil war tween the Left and Right.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Government itself is the danger to the people it should serve. Our Constitution was given to us by the Founders as our protection against it, and the abuses inherent in government.

Now, ask yourself this question about an 'individual mandate', and see if you still support the premise that the government can make you buy something you don't want. Suppose just for a moment that the current Marxist President is replaced with a highly right wing alternative. The pendulum having swung the other direction, that President decides healthcare includes defending yourself from bodily harm, and requiires every citizen to buy and carry a handgun, or pay a penalty to the IRS at tax time. Just as has been advanced to ban various drink sizes or popcorn volumes, so he decides to use government power to not only allow, but enforce the second amendment.

How would the specific application of what is being mandated affect your views?

I'm gonna buy a gun and then watch as health care costs in the country sky rocket from all the gun shot wounds that result from the ignorance of arming an entire population.

 

[Licia]

i think their power is overexaggerated. they can only issue opinions on cases that are brought to them, and so are limited as to what they can say. also, it's not like they vote with any consistancy that can be relied upon, so there's no "slam-dunk" with what they'll hand down.

BO's making a case for the executive branch being the most powerful, the way he's been circumventing the checks and balances of congress by issuing executive orders.

What was it? Something like 1 million women bringing a case to be heard in front of the Supreme Justices concerning WAL-MART.

All those voices heard STFU loud and clear.

"Not enough evidence to convict"

If memory serves correctly, the price to be heard in Supreme Court was virtually nothing compared to the cost of justice today.

 

[JohnnySavage]

What was it? Something like 1 million women bringing a case to be heard in front of the Supreme Justices concerning WAL-MART.

All those voices heard STFU loud and clear.

"Not enough evidence to convict"

If memory serves correctly, the price to be heard in Supreme Court was virtually nothing compared to the cost of justice today.

The Supreme Court doesn't hear evidence.

 

[TorontoBoyWest]

Firstly, police departments are overseen by state and/or local governments, not the feds. Secondly, the judicial branch deals with the court system of the United States.

A- I never differenciated between state and federal when I suggested that SCOTUS is just as much a part of Government as your local PD. You did.

B- Explain to me how the foot soldiers of the courts, and that is exactly what police are, are not part of the judical branch again? Police are the first contact of the public in regards to the court system. The uphold the laws and mete out punishments with as much frequency as a judge.

 

[JohnnySavage]

A- I never differenciated between state and federal when I suggested that SCOTUS is just as much a part of Government as your local PD. You did.

B- Explain to me how the foot soldiers of the courts, and that is exactly what police are, are not part of the judical branch again? Police are the first contact of the public in regards to the court system. The uphold the laws and mete out punishments with as much frequency as a judge.

Law enforcement is part of the executive branch.

 

[TexasWife25]

Best definition of an activist court I've heard is that it's a soccer referee who can't stop himself from kicking the ball. A judge should call the shots that are in front of him or her. Answer the question that a case is asking. No more, no less. Answers will sometimes be biased, that's just human nature, and even judges put on their pants one leg at the time. (Unless they're commando under there, but let's not go there.) It's when the answers, the court ruling, goes beyond what the question actually asked, that's when you have an activist ruling.

This is what some claim happened w. Citizens United for instance. The SCOTUS was asked "Can we do diz?" and they said "Yep". Which woulda been fine. But then they said "Furthermore..."

No idea if that's accurate for the case, haven't read the ruling myself and it would probably make my ears bleed if I tried.

But if it is, that is jucidial activism as I see it.

I believe most people see it as interrupting meaning in a law, rather then following the letter of it.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Wrong Element]

Its the individual mandate, he views it as unconstitutional, and any judge who votes to uphold it, is in his book, making law, instead of following the constitution.

While I don't feel that way, I do think Obama lost support from independents with the mandate.

There's no question the mandate is the least popular part of the law, but there was no way around that: you can't have the fun benefits without some way to get new money into the system (the other ways are an employer mandate, which the country decided it didn't want in the 1990s; and single payer, which Obama decided not to fight for even as a negotiating tactic). And that's why most of the law, including the parts most people say they like, probably can't survive the abolition of the mandate: insurance companies had been counting on all the new business, most of it from people who are currently low consumers of health care services.

But there's a big difference between believing the mandate is poor public policy and believing that it does not fall under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce, a viewpoint that no one outside the lunatic fringe holds now or has held for several decades. An activist is someone who does not know the difference between the two, or knows the difference but doesn't care.