The Supreme Court Isnt Democracy

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

http://www.peggynoonan.com/

The new tern for LESBIAN is MERRY WOMEN.

 

[CeriseBuss]

The Supreme Court Isn't Democracy

This is true, just as the Founders intended.

The whole point of judicial review in civil rights matters is to be non-democratic. It is to protect certain minorities (protected classes) from the "tyranny of the majority."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Peggy Noonan?



Isn't she the Republican woman who fell in love with Barack Obama?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Peggy Noonan?



Isn't she the Republican woman who fell in love with Barack Obama?

The same. Jeb Bush is her new man.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This is true, just as the Founders intended.

The whole point of judicial review in civil rights matters is to be non-democratic. It is to protect certain minorities (protected classes) from the "tyranny of the majority."

The point is unanimity NOT fashion.

 

[toubab]

This is true, just as the Founders intended.

The whole point of judicial review in civil rights matters is to be non-democratic. It is to protect certain minorities (protected classes) from the "tyranny of the majority."

My recollection is that SCOTUS was just a third wheel in the beginning. A relatively minor one. I think it met two weeks a year in the beginning, in various locations, and heard something like four cases in the first six years, resulting in the first Chief Justice, John Jay, resigning to become governor of New York, thinking SCOTUS would never amount to much. He was wrong about that. Very wrong. Unfortunately wrong.

 

[BotanyBoy]

My recollection is that SCOTUS was just a third wheel in the beginning. A relatively minor one. I think it met two weeks a year in the beginning, in various locations, and heard something like four cases in the first six years, resulting in the first Chief Justice, John Jay, resigning to become governor of New York, thinking SCOTUS would never amount to much. He was wrong about that. Very wrong. Unfortunately wrong.

Still can't name all those freedoms the SCOTUS took from you can you? LOL or the powers they assumed LMFAO!!!


Who would have thunk all that needed to happen for RW'ers to become pro democracy was to have a court rule against their bigotry.

Not that it would matter....you guys still love activist judges and ask them to go shit on others you don't like whenever it suits you.

 

[toubab]

Still can't name all those freedoms the SCOTUS took from you can you? LOL or the powers they assumed LMFAO!!!


Who would have thunk all that needed to happen for RW'ers to become pro democracy was to have a court rule against their bigotry.

Not that it would matter....you guys still love activist judges and ask them to go shit on others you don't like whenever it suits you.

You are such a moron. You really are. The fact you still think I'm a right winger after all this time is pathetic.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My recollection is that SCOTUS was just a third wheel in the beginning. A relatively minor one. I think it met two weeks a year in the beginning, in various locations, and heard something like four cases in the first six years, resulting in the first Chief Justice, John Jay, resigning to become governor of New York, thinking SCOTUS would never amount to much. He was wrong about that. Very wrong. Unfortunately wrong.

I believe in the beginning SCOTUS covered maritime cases, cases between the states, and cases between states and feds.

Whats amazing is the origin of particular laws and rulings. Take slavery. Most of slaverys protections came after New England requested protection for its slave ships. Many of the Southern states were first to enact limits on the slave trade, and New England got busy saving the industry. Then later they walked it back, like Hillary, and blamed George Bush.

In 1787 when Virginia ceded much of the Midwest to the US, the trade outlawed slavery in the new acquisition. That was Virginias demand.

 

[sigh]

The United States isn't a democracy, James. That's not how our government works or was set up to work.

 

[toubab]

I believe in the beginning SCOTUS covered maritime cases, cases between the states, and cases between states and feds.

That's my understanding as well. I don't think anyone ever imagined at the start that SCOTUS would become the unbelievably powerful, all encompassing body it has become.

 

[sigh]

My recollection is that SCOTUS was just a third wheel in the beginning. A relatively minor one. I think it met two weeks a year in the beginning, in various locations, and heard something like four cases in the first six years, resulting in the first Chief Justice, John Jay, resigning to become governor of New York, thinking SCOTUS would never amount to much. He was wrong about that. Very wrong. Unfortunately wrong.

Considering the number of Federal laws passed in the last two hundred years, it's no surprise that the court is a tad bit busier than it once was.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You are such a moron. You really are. The fact you still think I'm a right winger after all this time is pathetic.

I never said anything about RW.....that's all you.

You said the scotus assumed powers and took freedom in another thread...then failed to back it up.

All you did was exactly like your doing now, name calling, because no assumed powers and no freedom lost. Just your butthurt over SCOTUS forcing states to not be quite so bigoted/theocratic tyrants.

 

[toubab]

Considering the number of Federal laws passed in the last two hundred years, it's no surprise that the court is a tad bit busier than it once was.

That's part of the problem. But more importantly, SCOTUS has gotten into the habit of making new law on its own.

 

[toubab]

I never said anything about RW.....that's all you.

You said the scotus assumed powers and took freedom in another thread...then failed to back it up.

All you did was exactly like your doing now, name calling, because no assumed powers and no freedom lost. Just your butthurt over SCOTUS forcing states to not be quite so bigoted/theocratic tyrants.

Apparently you don't even read the shit you write. Not surprising.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's part of the problem. But more importantly, SCOTUS has gotten into the habit of making new law on its own.

Oh more claims....please....tell us what laws the SCOTUS has been passing all on it's own.

Apparently you don't even read the shit you write. Not surprising.

MMmhmmm......

Still can't name the powers assumed.....

And you're not going to name any new legislation the SCOTUS has been passing either.

 

[toubab]

Oh more claims....please....tell us what laws the SCOTUS has been passing all on it's own.





MMmhmmm......

Still can't name the powers assumed.....

And you're not going to name any new legislation the SCOTUS has been passing either.

I don't know how anyone can be as dense as you are. This decision on gay marriage is a prime example of SCOTUS making law on its own. And just to keep you from making the same stupid assumptions you've been making, I'm not against gays getting married, dumbass.

 

[sigh]

That's my understanding as well. I don't think anyone ever imagined at the start that SCOTUS would become the unbelievably powerful, all encompassing body it has become.

No argument there. When they decided that a corporation is a person, they stretched the founder's intent of the scope of their powers to the breaking point.

 

[toubab]

No argument there. When they decided that a corporation is a person, they stretched the founder's intent of the scope of their powers to the breaking point.

I have the feeling we ain't seen nothing yet.

 

[sigh]

I don't know how anyone can be as dense as you are. This decision on gay marriage is a prime example of SCOTUS making law on its own. And just to keep you from making the same stupid assumptions you've been making, I'm not against gays getting married, dumbass.

So striking down a law as unconstitutional is the same as making a law? It's a fine line, I admit, but there is a distinction.

 

[toubab]

So striking down a law as unconstitutional is the same as making a law? It's a fine line, I admit, but there is a distinction.

They didn't just strike down a law.

 

[sigh]

They didn't just strike down a law.

Sure they did. At the heart of the challenge were several state laws banning gay marriage. They were struck down by the court.

 

[toubab]

Sure they did. At the heart of the challenge were several state laws banning gay marriage. They were struck down by the court.

I find it odd that some of you can't see the danger in as few as five individuals in this country of well over three hundred million citizens taking the authority to rule such sweeping change for all of us in one fell swoop.

 

[Sean]

I find it odd that some of you can't see the danger in as few as five individuals in this country of well over three hundred million citizens taking the authority to rule such sweeping change for all of us in one fell swoop.

What sweeping change? That the American Taliban can't impose their bigotry on the citizens? I think you'll find that's in the first amendment.

 

[toubab]

What sweeping change? That the American Taliban can't impose their bigotry on the citizens? I think you'll find that's in the first amendment.

You mean you don't see it as sweeping change? Seriously? As I wrote in another thread, I almost hope the Republicans win the presidency next year and retain control of the Senate. It will suddenly become clear to some of you where the rub is as Ruth Bader Ginsberg continues to falter, possibly to be replaced by a younger version of Antonin Scalia.