The Supreme Court. Good? Bad?

[AtheistArchon]

- Is it me, or have the radical conservatives made a giant about-face when it comes to the Supreme Court?

- Back in 2000, when they elected Bush, not enough good could be said about them. But now in 03, when a few civil rights cases come down on the side of humanity instead of "gawd said it's a sin, so it should be illegal", every uberconservative is screaming themselves red-faced about how the SC really doesn't have any power, and how the SC shouldn't be respected because they're just a group of grumpy old people, and so on and so forth.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11421

The framers of our Constitution never intended anything like this to take place in our land. Yet we seem to be helpless to do anything about it. Why? Because we are under the tyranny of a nonelected oligarchy. Just think, five unelected men and women who serve for life can change the moral fabric of our nation and take away the protections which our elected legislators have wisely put in place.

- *distant violins begin playing a sad, sad song while Archon smirks*

- And now the whole Newdow thing is threatening to go to the SC, and every religious convervative in power is making plans to amend the very constitution. Hey guys, if they were so evil and unelected, then why didn't you complain when they put Bush in office? Now THAT'S unelected.

- Seems to me that allies are quickly turned into enemies in the religious power game.

[AtheistArchon]

- Oh, by the way, isn't this forum cool? Politics AND religion! I'm surprised nobody gets killed around here. =D

[citizenkyle]

Historically speaking, the SC has been very conservative, almost always coming down on the side of strong central government and big business. I'm amazed at how upset conservatives get when one tiny liberal bread crumb is tossed to the masses.

Don't the conservatives realize that they always win in a stratified class society where the super-rich have a stranglehold on the machinery of government?

Bush is illicitly in office, we bombed another poor country this year, corporate taxes got slashed, environmental regulations are dangerously lax, the military budget is bloated, social programs are desperately underfunded, white collar crime still carries virtually no punishment...geez, what else do the cons want?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 12:29 AM post located here
AtheistArchon:

- Is it me, or have the radical conservatives made a giant about-face when it comes to the Supreme Court?

What radical conservatives?

- Back in 2000, when they elected Bush, not enough good could be said about them.

That's because they looked good next to the Florida Supreme Court.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...t=bush+vs+gore

But now in 03, when a few civil rights cases come down on the side of humanity instead of "gawd said it's a sin, so it should be illegal", every uberconservative is screaming themselves red-faced about how the SC really doesn't have any power, and how the SC shouldn't be respected because they're just a group of grumpy old people, and so on and so forth.

It's true that many conservatives don't like the way that the liberal political agenda is sometimes advanced through the activist judiciary.

- And now the whole Newdow thing is threatening to go to the SC, and every religious convervative in power is making plans to amend the very constitution. Hey guys, if they were so evil and unelected, then why didn't you complain when they put Bush in office? Now THAT'S unelected.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...t=bush+vs+gore

Repeat, just in case you missed it.

- Seems to me that allies are quickly turned into enemies in the religious power game.

Your analysis appears superficial, imo.

[Thomas2003]

The issue is whether or not the judicial branch can legislate. The Supreme Court serves an essential and very important function as a judiciary, but, they have since The Great Traitor Roosevelt stacked the Court been aggressively dismantling the Constitution and self government by legislating from the bench.

I would agree with your conclusion concerning conservatives wrong responses, such as wishing to amend the Constitution over such things as homosexual marriages and the like. But that doesn't mean the Courts decision is lawful.

Cordially,

Thomas

[wienerdog]

The problem with the Supreme Court is that they have assumed the right to supersede the legislative and executive branches. The problem with this is that it makes people over whom "we the people" have no direct electoral power the supreme leaders. That's called an oligarchy. John Jay was the first chief justice, and he quit because there wasn't enough power in it for him. Since then, we've changed, and I don't think for the better.

Now, conservatives and liberals, and everybody else for that matter, will sometimes praise and sometimes condemn the Supreme Court depending on whether they agree with their rulings. But that shouldn't be mistaken for praising the Supreme Court itself, just the particular decision in question.

[The Laughing Man]

Ugh. The "selected not elected" myth rears it's ugly, bitter head once again. What's funny, though, is that by bringing that myth up, AA and Kyle place themselves in the same category that AA creates for "radical conservatives" in his initial post, i.e. that of people who can't decide if SCOTUS is "evil" or not. That's not hypocritical or anything. No. Not at all.

[The Laughing Man]

Consider (adapted from the original post to make a point):

Is it me, or have the radical liberals made a giant about-face when it comes to the Supreme Court? Back in 2000, when they selected Bush, not enough criticism could be said about them. But now in 03, when a few civil rights cases come down on the side of liberalism, every uberliberal is screaming themselves red-faced about how the SC is rightly using its power, and how the SC should be respected because they have the final say about the law, and so on and so forth.

[Minnesota]

wienerdog

The problem with the Supreme Court is that they have assumed the right to supersede the legislative and executive branches.

Oh really! I'm a bit at a loss as to what you have in mind by "supercede," but if it is what I think it is, then perhaps you would like to cite those instances in which the court has passed legislation and where it has administered the laws and affairs of the nation. Or, has detered or prevented these branches from fulfilling their duties.

[wienerdog]

Today @ 05:03 AM post located here
Minnesota:

Oh really! I'm a bit at a loss as to what you have in mind by "supercede," but if it is what I think it is, then perhaps you would like to cite those instances in which the court has passed legislation and where it has administered the laws and affairs of the nation. Or, has detered or prevented these branches from fulfilling their duties.

Well, just take any controversial issue the Supreme Court has made a decision on. Would Congress be allowed to pass a law that goes against their decision?

I think it started in the 19th century when there was a dispute between Congress and the President, and they asked the Supreme Court to adjudicate between them. Since then, the Supreme Court has assumed the right to determine whether the laws passed by Congress and the President are valid or not.

[Thomas2003]

Hi,

Well, it's really very simple. Go to the cases prior to Roosevelt's new appointments and everything that was "unconstitutional" prior to their appointments became constitutional after their appointments.

Then carry those legal precedents forward in how the 14th Amendment is applied and it become self evident.

Just look at the latest homosexual ruling. Why can't states legislate sexual behavior - they've been doing it since the Common Law was established all the way back into England and Anglo Saxon law.

All of a sudden it becomes "unconstitutional" for the free people of the State of Texas to legislate against homosexual behavior. Same way it did for them to legilsate against abortion.

[Minnesota]

wienerdog
Well, just take any controversial issue the Supreme Court has made a decision on. Would Congress be allowed to pass a law that goes against their decision?

No. Because that is one of the powers of the Court: to define the legal limits and meaning of laws in light of the Constitution. Do you really think that Congress has the power to make laws that circumvent the meaning and intent of the Constitution? It does not. I suggest brushing up on the functions and responsibilities of the Supreme Court, and the interrelationships of the three branches of government.


Thomas2003

Aside from your ridiculous opening statement regarding cases prior to Roosevelt's new appointments, you seem to be under the impression that the Court simply picks those issues to consider that strike its fancy. All the issues it takes up arise because lower court rulings appear to have breached the Constitution. Unless someone files a case before a lower court and is ruled against, that issue will never reach the Supreme Court. There is no "all of a sudden." The court only addressed homosexual and abortion issues because someone finally pursued them through the lower courts on up to the Supreme Court. If no one pursues an issue the court cannot rule on it.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

07-11-2003 @ 09:58 PM post located here
Captain Ochre:

It's true that many conservatives don't like the way that the liberal political agenda is sometimes advanced through the activist judiciary.

So how do they feel when it is a conservative agenda that is advanced through the judiciary?

[Captain Ochre]

Today @ 05:18 PM post located here
Eireann:

So how do they feel when it is a conservative agenda that is advanced through the judiciary?

I'm not sure that you could find anything comparable. A conservative judiciary tends to attempt to discern authorial intent in the Constitution. Most times that leaves the legislature to discern and implement the will of the people (expression of self-governance).
What would you consider an instance of conservative judical activism?

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Today @ 12:18 PM post located here
Captain Ochre:

What would you consider an instance of conservative judical activism?

Well, I suppose one could almost consider the situation with the Bush/Gore election a case of conservative judicial activism when they backed a hurry-up tactic that flew in the face of Florida state law which required the Florida judiciary to determine, to the best of its ability, the will of the voters and implement any resolution necessary (including throwing out results and requiring a new vote, if necessary) to satisfy the will of the voters. When Jeb Bush and his cabinet requested a deadline be placed on recounts, that request was in violation of that Florida state law, and when the Supreme Court backed the request, it also violated Florida's state law. Whether or not the results would have been the same is irrelevent, but I think that would qualify as a case of conservative judicial activism.