Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Who are you? Why are you asking me this?
    Posts
    4,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Supreme Court Contempary Bais

    I would argue the Supreme court does NOT in fact reflect a more reasoned opinion on the consisitution as it is purported, but rather simply reflects whatever contempary feeling exists in the nation at the time.
    Consider that they upheld countless unconsititutional (at least found so at a later date) laws during its existence, and that have been cast out.

    I would argue by allowing the Supreme court to operate under the rheteric of impartiality we deny what it truly is. A more-or-less reasoned gauge for public sentiment on matters of state, who, through the process of homogenization through association (consider ODN is far more libertarian then most of the population at large, primarily, I would argue, because we've through debate rubbed off each other's pointy liberal/conserv. ness), simply spit back how the wind is blowing.

    I would also take issue with the nature of appointment. The executive branch, by picking the supreme level of the courts, gives itself control if sufficently organized into parties (political party judge plus political party president = mutal back scratcher).
    Further, the oversight of this court is terrible. By only forcing resignation through death or choice, we deny the fact that judges, as human beings, eventually become irrelevant antiquations. I would support this with the fact that judges are traiditonally extremely conservative in there rulings, (conservative as in supporting the norm/greatest approval, not pro-gun anti-gays conservative).

  2. #2
    ODN Administrator

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Rural Southern Indiana
    Posts
    5,285
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Contempary Bais

    While I agree with the idea that the court is biased, I have a couple of issues with what you've alleged here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    I would argue the Supreme court does NOT in fact reflect a more reasoned opinion on the consisitution as it is purported, but rather simply reflects whatever contempary feeling exists in the nation at the time.
    Consider that they upheld countless unconsititutional (at least found so at a later date) laws during its existence, and that have been cast out.
    I wouldn't say in the nation, because this imples the ideals held by the people are involved. I would rather say that it's the policy of whatever executive and legislature we have at that point in time, who do, more often than not, act and react in opposition to those who they are supposed to be representing.

    Consider this my response to your second paragraph as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    I would also take issue with the nature of appointment. The executive branch, by picking the supreme level of the courts, gives itself control if sufficently organized into parties (political party judge plus political party president = mutal back scratcher).
    Don't forget that congress must APPROVE choices, it's not just the executive that does this. But I also think that we are in a catch-22 situation. You think they bow too much now? Wait until they come up for re-election. There are means to have justices ejected before they retire or die.


    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    Further, the oversight of this court is terrible. By only forcing resignation through death or choice, we deny the fact that judges, as human beings, eventually become irrelevant antiquations. I would support this with the fact that judges are traiditonally extremely conservative in there rulings, (conservative as in supporting the norm/greatest approval, not pro-gun anti-gays conservative).
    I agree that oversight is atrocious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Encarta
    Under the Constitution they can be removed from the Court only by first being impeached (accused) by a majority vote of the U.S. House of Representatives and then convicted by a two-thirds vote of the Senate.
    Supreme Court of the United States - MSN Encarta

    But this process has only been executed once, and that justice was not removed.

    The question becomes, what do you think should be done about this?
    "And that, my lord, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped." ~ Monty Python


  3. #3
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,478
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Contempary Bais

    Remember that the president only nominates, the senate confirms them. And do you have any citations for "countless unconsititutional (at least found so at a later date) laws during its existence, and that have been cast out." There are a few, but not that many as I am aware.
    I would tend to agree with you in large part, but for a different reason. I tend to think it is because the judiciary as a whole has been moving towards making common law, instead of interpreting already written law.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #4
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Who are you? Why are you asking me this?
    Posts
    4,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Contempary Bais

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    I wouldn't say in the nation, because this imples the ideals held by the people are involved. I would rather say that it's the policy of whatever executive and legislature we have at that point in time, who do, more often than not, act and react in opposition to those who they are supposed to be representing.
    ?
    I think the government largely works in fear of pissing off the people in broad strokes. So we get civil rights legislation in the 60s as almost everyone supports it, and the government can only drag its feed for so long.
    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    Don't forget that congress must APPROVE choices, it's not just the executive that does this.
    ?
    The supreme court, through consititutionality, can invalid any law congress makes no?
    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    But I also think that we are in a catch-22 situation. You think they bow too much now? Wait until they come up for re-election. There are means to have justices ejected before they retire or die.
    ?
    It isn't a contempory issue. The Supreme Court has always traditionally been baised toward whatever position was popular at the time. Slavery, women's rights, civil rights. I mean during the WW1 the Supreme court even went so far as to include the phrase "defense of this glorious nation" in its support of conscription. Thats so far from a considered reflection on the consititution as one can get!
    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    But this process has only been executed once, and that justice was not removed.
    ?
    Huh, what'd ya know?
    I still think such a majority is kinda stupid.

    Quote Originally Posted by ladyphoenix View Post
    The question becomes, what do you think should be done about this?
    What I would do would stretch to 20 pages and completely rework the American government.
    That is, I'm just going to poke holes in things as they are until people agree with me stuff sucks

    Then...I strike!

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    6,238
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Contempary Bais

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    I would argue the Supreme court does NOT in fact reflect a more reasoned opinion on the consisitution as it is purported, but rather simply reflects whatever contempary feeling exists in the nation at the time.
    Ok, so what's stopping ya?

    Seriously, though, and I mean it.. You are attempting to make a comparison. Who are you comparing the Supreme Court to? If you are suggesting that the Supreme Court rules according to the zeitgeist of the times, absolutely. In some part, that is its job. The Constitution, by design, is fluid. It is open to interpretation such that as society's values change, the Constitution can meet the needs of the changed society without changing the core moral values that the Constitution describes.

    In terms of your claim, that jurors on the SC merely reflect the zeitgeist without considering the Constitution, itself, you will have to provide some evidence of this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    Consider that they upheld countless unconsititutional (at least found so at a later date) laws during its existence, and that have been cast out.
    As someone else has noted, you will have to be more specific. You saying it, doesn't make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    I would argue by allowing the Supreme court to operate under the rheteric of impartiality we deny what it truly is. A more-or-less reasoned gauge for public sentiment on matters of state, who, through the process of homogenization through association (consider ODN is far more libertarian then most of the population at large, primarily, I would argue, because we've through debate rubbed off each other's pointy liberal/conserv. ness), simply spit back how the wind is blowing.
    This is actually a ridiculous claim. Are you insinuating that Scalia and Ginsberg agree? I am pretty sure you will find a great many decisions are split 5-4. There has been very little "homogenization" of the court which essentially undermines your theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    I would also take issue with the nature of appointment. The executive branch, by picking the supreme level of the courts, gives itself control if sufficently organized into parties (political party judge plus political party president = mutal back scratcher).
    Great when it works out. Ask Reagan how well that went. You never really know how a judge will rule when he gets the job. Perhaps, this speaks to the fact that a great many jurists do their best to keep an open mind and rule according to the facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Turtleflipper View Post
    Further, the oversight of this court is terrible. By only forcing resignation through death or choice, we deny the fact that judges, as human beings, eventually become irrelevant antiquations. I would support this with the fact that judges are traiditonally extremely conservative in there rulings, (conservative as in supporting the norm/greatest approval, not pro-gun anti-gays conservative).
    If your assumption was correct, how did Roe v. Wade, Tinker, or Brown ever happen? You have given a brand new definition of conservative. Apparently, they are approval hungry and progressive. I am having trouble figuring out how their irrelevant antiquation alters this. Essentially, TF, this is a rather poorly constructed argument that is more of a rambling rant, than a topic for debate. You contradict yourself and make unsubstantiated claims. Do better.
    The U.S. is currently enduring a zombie apocalypse. However, in a strange twist, the zombie's are starving.

  6. #6
    I've been given a "timeout"

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Who are you? Why are you asking me this?
    Posts
    4,064
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Supreme Court Contempary Bais

    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Seriously, though, and I mean it.. You are attempting to make a comparison. Who are you comparing the Supreme Court to? If you are suggesting that the Supreme Court rules according to the zeitgeist of the times, absolutely. In some part, that is its job. The Constitution, by design, is fluid. It is open to interpretation such that as society's values change, the Constitution can meet the needs of the changed society without changing the core moral values that the Constitution describes.

    In terms of your claim, that jurors on the SC merely reflect the zeitgeist without considering the Constitution, itself, you will have to provide some evidence of this.
    When did I say that?
    Of course they utilize the consitution, but only in so far as they want to defend the opinion they are ruling on. The massive expansion of the federal right to determine interstate commerce specifically in the SC decision to uphold the outlawing of Californian meidcal marijuana laws.
    Jim crow laws shot down as unconsitiutional yet being upheld for so long (ferugseon! initially then the Warren court's decision).

    I would actually like to point out where someone else complained of my specificity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    This is actually a ridiculous claim. Are you insinuating that Scalia and Ginsberg agree? I am pretty sure you will find a great many decisions are split 5-4. There has been very little "homogenization" of the court which essentially undermines your theory.
    Homogenization along party lines. You'll hopefully notice "of the court" was your own injection
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Great when it works out. Ask Reagan how well that went. You never really know how a judge will rule when he gets the job. Perhaps, this speaks to the fact that a great many jurists do their best to keep an open mind and rule according to the facts.
    What facts? How is something consitutional for decades, and then not? This shouldn be a cut and dry issue. If a law violates the constitution, it should clearly go against...the consitution
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    If your assumption was correct, how did Roe v. Wade, Tinker, or Brown ever happen? You have given a brand new definition of conservative.
    Massive civil agigtation and public opinion shift, especially the rising star of feminism, and civil rights.
    Conservatism isn't just your own little america-for-all version of it.
    Quote Originally Posted by dictionary
    Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures; not radical.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Apparently, they are approval hungry and progressive. I am having trouble figuring out how their irrelevant antiquation alters this.
    You've pointed to 3 instances in there entire history. How do you defend the upholding of rights of slavery (Dred Scott v. Sandford), segregation (Plessy v. Ferguson), limitation of personal expression through (Dunlop v. U.S, Smith v. People of the State of California, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation), allowing workers to be fired for union membership and making women's minimum wage laws "unconsitiutional" (Adair vs. United Sates, Adkins v. Children's Hospital) and then later on decidedly anti-business (West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish), in addition to self-contradictory.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ibelsd View Post
    Essentially, TF, this is a rather poorly constructed argument that is more of a rambling rant, than a topic for debate. You contradict yourself and make unsubstantiated claims. Do better.
    Of course, I'm sure your knowledge of 3 SC cases renders your opinion of far more considered a stance then mine, to the point I just made a rambling rant while you concisely smashed it to bits. I mean how can any organization that legalized ABORTION be possibly considered conservative. I mean...they only have a massive history of it, and the cases you list are the exception to the rule?

    As Jefferson said, "The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

 

 

Similar Threads

  1. Rothbard on Security and Anarcho-Capitalism
    By Dr. Gonzo in forum General Debate
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: January 1st, 2007, 06:34 PM
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 7th, 2005, 02:04 PM
  3. Schiavo: Life or Death?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: April 13th, 2005, 09:04 AM
  4. Supreme Court bans execution of minors.
    By KevinBrowning in forum Politics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: March 1st, 2005, 10:41 PM
  5. CA Supreme Court revokes gay marriages
    By Apokalupsis in forum Politics
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: August 18th, 2004, 09:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •