This thread is for those who want to discuss those decisions. But please avoid heated debates since the Supreme Court basically has the last say in the US.

I haven't followed many of these closely but all I want to know is how you can rule that the display of the Ten Commandents in courthouses is illegal and then rule that the display on government land is legal. Any thoughts?

Judicial Review is crap and needs to be reformed. We need stricter regulations on what they can and cannot rule on. Seriously, the fact that no matter what what, 13 (I think) justices have the last say on everything, is just stupid. That's just my opinion on the whole matter.

There's 9 judges on the Supreme Court...

And technically, I think the last say lies with the states and Congress, but stuff rarely goes that far.

Up until recently the Supreme Court has (mostly) done a good job at protecting our freedoms.

If the Supreme Court rules that some form of law is unconstitutional that's it. Either it's rewritten or it's scratched. The problem with the Supreme Court (and basically all the courts..esp 9th circuit) is that they make law. They're not supposed to do that! The Court does stuff outside what the Constitution mandates for itself. That's what Congress does.

I am quite displeased with the ruling that cities can basically take your land and give it to someone else. That sounds very socialist to me. I thought this current court would be that way. Proved that wrong. But I believe there's another thread on this ruling.

Unless the constitution is amended.

Or you know... they can change their mind.

Thats kinda how.. precidents are set.

Otherwise the supreme court would still be all seperate but equal... and what not.




On an unrelated note..

Can we end the freaking embargo on Cuba already? I mean COME ON... that is some MAD-outdated policy...

The decisions were based on the intent of the displays, not the location.

The court wrote in the Kentucky case: "[D]isplaying the Commandments bespeaks a religious object unless they are integrated with a secular message. The court saw no integration here because of a lack of a demonstrated analytical or historical connection between the Commandments and the other documents."

I'm a Christian and I think displaying the Ten Commandments at a courthouse ougtha be the highest priority on a Christians' list of things to do. It's crazy. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about building these things. And I would guess that many of the people who want to put these things up wouldn't dare give a drunk or a prostitute the time of day. Sure, these Christians are good people, just as long as you appear normal. If you're whitewashed on the outside, that's all they care about.

As for what the SC's doing...wow. You know, if it gets any worse for the country and the Indians get fed up with the cruddy deal they've got, I'll join the revolution to overthrow or change the gov't. Nobody's got an identity anymore. We took away the Indians' and now mass immigration and liberalism are taking away our own. There aren't any heroes. If there are any that crop up, they're quickly found to be imperfect by the man and condemned or replaced by a corporation. When somebody invents something big nowadays...we never quite know who it was that did it. When a shuttle is launched...we never know who's on it, what they'll be doing, or which shuttle they're taking. We certainly don't throw ticker tape parades for them anymore! No more Neil Armstrongs, Alvin Yorks, Thomas Edisons, Teddy Roosevelts, Abe Lincolns, or George Washingtons. In a different time, George W Bush would be an all-American hero-president, in line with all the guys in Mt. Rushmore. Thanks to partisan politics and postmodernism, we've lost respect for authority and almost each other. The country's just going to a place where it doesn't need to go.

I'm a Christian. And I'm an American. I'm becoming rapidly outdated. Do I change with the times and offer what I can to make the new day good for the world or do I stand my ground and do my best to hope others become as nostalgic as I am and fight to preserve all that was good in America so many years ago?

You made absolutely no sense whatsoever. Repost again tomorrow after you sober up.

What pisses me off is that the Supreme Court justices have no accountability to anyone and are free to raise hell until they retire or die. They're too powerful, since they can effectively legislate from the bench, and whatever they say goes.

IMO, no public official should ever be appointed for life, a 5-10 year term would be more appropriate, after which they would have to be re-appointed, or possibly elected.

You know...when you start thinking about the failings of democracy like this, you realize that a dictatorship really has the least amount of ways it can go wrong. If it does go wrong, it's easy enough to fix.

I think that SW's 2-6 kinda examined that philosophy. Yeah.
I say REPEAL THE ALIEN AND SEDITION ACTS!
Repeal 'em. Lift this oppressive ban. This is the frikkin Plessy V Ferguson of free speech. At least cut it back a little. What was obscene then may not be obscene now. What was seditious then is not seditious now.

-That and the Selective Service are pretty much all I have a problem with in the current US government. But, I'll save that eloquent rant for another time.

They're accountable to Congress and the states. Any Supreme Court ruling can be overturned with a Constitutional amendment, and Congress also has the express power to alter the Court's apellate jurisdiction.

The judiciary really has a limited ability to "raise hell", because it's liable to be legislated into insignificance. The system seems to work fairly well: The court is insulated enough that it can rule against public opinion, but there exists sufficient oversight that its rulings can't be too outlandish.

And said amendments can be ruled unconstitutional. Granted, not without heavy evidence, but still. This is one thing I agree with Page on--the courts are too powerful.

Yeah. If you don't understand the Supreme Court decisions, why are you criticizing them?

Yoshi: You are your own perfect counterargument.

Please, do tell, because your argument fails to stun me.

lmao Yoshi, that can be taken two ways... and the second way proves Ictus's point perfectly.

Let me put it more plainly for the simple minded: I don't know how the hell I'm my own perfect counter-argument, and unless you're willing to explain how, I suggest that you stop making such a 'bold claim' as it were.

How can amendments be ruled unconstitutional. By definition they become part of the consitution. I wasn't aware of courts playing any role in the amendment process.

I asked, Argath answered. Where's the criticism?

Yoshi...amendments can not be ruled unconstitutional because they are part of the constitution.

Yes they can. If you're going to rule the whole thing unconstitutional, you usually make another amendment to do so (or that's what's happened in history) but they can certainly strike out certain aspects of them.

Can you give a historical example?

Yoshi, are you confusing an amendment to a bill with an amendment to the constitution?

Payback's a *****.

Yoshi, I believe you're confused. The judicial branch can not change a single line in the constitution. Once something has been added, that's it. The judicial branch can't do ****.

The judicial branch has NO INVOLVEMENT in the process of amending the constitution.

YES!!

The Judicial Branch can't change the Constitution, but they can certainly change how it's enforced. They've proven that pretty much anyone with an agenda can stretch that enforcement to virtually change it without going through the official channels. Word-manipulation is the name of the game. I don't think the Framers could have seen this coming, due to the fact that the country resembled what they started until WWII, pretty much. Then it seemed like the pessimism from that changed the generations that were running and would run the country.

HAHAHAHA!

OWNED!

I hope it goes through, see how he likes it.

Do you have specific cases to back this up? I see a lot of assertions.

Feel free to use this resource: http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/constitution/

I probably do, but I'm too lazy to look them up. Back in the day, I would've, but I've gotten so sick of arguing with people that I'm not gonna. I'm just going to state my observation based on what I remember of the reading I've done on the matter over the years (both objective and subjective) and leave you to agree or disagree with me.

I've learned that this forum is like one of the very few places that I've encountered in a LONG time that wants cold, hard facts before it believes something. I'd be hard pressed to go anywhere else in the world at random and find that. This is about the only place I can count on to demand that often-unrealistic quality of evidence in order to believe a lot of things. So I'm not going to indulge you by giving you the cold hard facts. You're either going to have to trust me or write me off as a peddler of BS.

No one else in the world wants facts?

I WANT FACTUAL PROOF.

Nobody can provide any because it doesn't exist. It takes a supermajority of congress to pass an amendment and then a supermajority of the states to ratify it. Then it's a done deal. The court can't interpret an amendment of the constitution unconstitutional because it is the constitution. Amendments can be repealed but that is a wholy seperate process uninvolved in the courts.

Well, he's mostly right. Progressive (aka liberal) judges often interpret constitutional law as they see fit. I'm not trying to be partisan here but it appears that conservative judges understand that the legislature writes law, not the courts. That is why you see Democrat politicians take so much interest in judicial appointments.