What's Wrong with the U.S. Supreme Court?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Jun 26, 2012.

  1. Huntn, Jun 26, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2012

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    Is SCOTUS in the pockets of Corporations? Indications are yes, they are. This in light of the McCain-Feingold Act specifically written to block big money in elections. If anything, it illustrates how important the affiliation of Presidents are, the ones who nominate Supreme Court Justices.

    Supreme Court Ends Montana Ban on Corporate Political Spending

     
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #2
    Roberts and Thomas are two of the scariest people in the US government. Roberts because he's a shill for corporate America and Thomas because of his wet dreams about returning the US to its imaginary roots.
     
  3. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
  4. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #4
    Noticed the break down. 5 that voted for the corps are GOP appointed and the 4 against it are Dem.
     
  5. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #5
    The U.S. constitution currently prevents government from limiting free speech. The Supreme court has found that this includes speech by individuals, organizations, clubs, unions, corporations and so on. They have further found that providing donations towards political causes is an example of such speech.

    I find generally that partisans on both sides tend to want the courts to outlaw their opponent's political spending (some on the right would be ok with unions, being black-balled, even more on the left ok with companies/corporations being black-balled) both with little concern for how it's done (either constitutionally through an amendment process or unconstitutionally through a law passed by congress limiting free speech and freedom of association) just as long as it's the 'other side' who gets hurt, and not them. Hypocritical in the very least.
     
  6. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #6
    Scalia actually criticized a policy of the sitting president that was not before the court. That is unprecedented.

    In addition, there is the obvious problem of the conservatives on the Court refusing to self-enforce ethics rules every other judge in the US abides by. It is disgraceful and ethically repugnant for Justice Thomas' wife to be a lobbiest on issues that are before her husband. He must recuse himself, yet he sits there silent as a stone.

    Justice Roberts has expanded the scope of hearings before the Court to advance an agenda that benefits the GOP, all while ignoring decades of judicial precedent.

    If I were a litigant today, I would do everything in my power to avoid appealing to the Supreme Court. They no longer rule based on precedent or even good judgment. They rule based on partisan ideals.

    That is what is wrong with the Court.

    As for the Democrats on the Court, I have not seen enough of Kagan or Sotamayor, but at least Kagan recused herself from the immigration case. Some evidence of respect for the position and legitimacy of the Court.

    (edit) Money is not speech, and political speech is something governments have a reasonable and rational basis for regulating. The Roberts' Court has done an incredible disservice to democracy in this Country.
     
  7. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #7
    They're not called the RATS for nothing.
     
  8. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #8
    Agreed! :eek:
     
  9. classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #9
    Three quick questions...

    1) Do you believe that the role of the Supreme Court is to decide cases based chiefly on the plain language of the Constitution of the United States, and that it's Congress's role (not the judiciary) to make amendments, etc. to said constitution?
    2) Assuming your answer to #1 is 'yes,' after reading the arguments/questions of the sitting justices on the 'Affordable Care Act' (for example), which side (right or left) do you feel was more actively seeking to decide the case based on the written constitution, as opposed to being more focused on externalities such as 'equal justice', 'morality', 'doing what's right', etc.?
    3) Assuming your answer to #1 is 'yes,' and your answer to #2 is 'the right' (which based on my reading of the court proceedings, is the only logical conclusion), do you feel that this case is a unique circumstance where their roles have been reversed and that it is in fact the 'left-leaning' justices who more frequently and fervently rely on the plain language of the constitution to decide their cases?
     
  10. Mousse macrumors 68000

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #10
    They system of Check and Balance our forefathers installed in the Government has become a system of Checks and Moar Checks (with lots and lots of zeros :rolleyes:). Judges and politicians have become nothing more than pawns of Corporate America.:mad::mad::mad:

    Only in America, banks rob you.:eek::p
     
  11. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #11
    The "plain language" of the constitution is decidedly broad. The court provides a means of contextual interpretation and human reason to be applied in the unique situations that arise in day-to-day life. The constitution is a soulless piece of parchment, to try to find exact meaning, verbatim et literatim, in its text to cover any given situation is the absurd course of an autistic psychopath.
     
  12. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #12
    I believe the Supreme Court is to decide cases based on the language and intent of the Constitution, prior Judicial precedent and giving due deference to the other branches of government. My problem with the current court is not that it is making bad decisions (which it is), but that it is doing so contrary to legal precedent for partisan reasons. Citizens United was a small case on narrow issues until Justice Roberts saw an opportunity to tip the election process in favor of the GOP.

    I think the right is looking for an excuse to do what it wants to do, and which it feels is right, regardless of whether two equal branches of government have determined that health care reform is moral and what is right. I think if the Judges ruled on legal precedent, they would uphold the ACA in its entirety. That being said, I'm not a fan of the ACA, but I don't see the legal justification for overturning it other than the conservatives on the Court wanting to turn back the clock on how the commerce clause is interpreted.

    The whole point of precedent is to give continuity and prevent a small handful of judges from causing wild swings in jurisprudence. Oh well, so much for that.

    I think you don't understand how the Court works and have bought into the "original intent" silliness some like to argue. The Constitution is a living document, and it not only says and stands for what is on those few pages, but everything that the Congress, Executive and Judicial branch has done since.

    That works too.
     
  13. ThisIsNotMe macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
  14. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #14
    I don't know any liberals who hate freedom of speech. You as an individual have every right to say anything you want. However, if you as an individual are subject to limits when it comes to political campaigns, why would the Supreme Court give unlimited power to donate money to the very wealthy who stand the most to gain from the elections?

    The better question is why to conservatives hate democracy?
     
  15. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #15
    What? Conservatives want to conserve the constitution and our Republic. They don't want 51% rule democracy on all issues (that's not how our representative republic was set up).
     
  16. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #16
    Well, the point of what I asked was to show how silly the other question was, but since you responded, I have to ask are you paying attention at all to what is going on around you? Voter purges and voter ID laws and all the other efforts to disenfranchise the poor, elderly, minorities and others who they don't want to vote. How is that in any way constitutional?

    The GOP doesn't want 51% rule on any issue, they demand 60% on everything they disagree with, and demand that Democrats agree with them on everything else.

    (edit) The sad thing is you absolutely know I'm right.
     
  17. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #17
    It wasn't a silly question. I feel like a large percentage of liberals want to silence the opposition (free speech), that may not be you.

    The GOP demands 60% on what? voting in the house or popular opininion on issues?

    Sad thing is, I don't know you are right and I disagree with you more than 90% of the time.


     
  18. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #18
    What liberals have made what efforts to silence anyone? The Democrats want transparent and open elections that don't include massive amounts of anonymous money and all the potential for bribery that entails. I don't care if billionaires give money to the GOP and the GOP then uses that money for the exact same ads it is doing now, but it should be transparent and regulated.

    Why do you disagree with that. Do you like the idea that elected officials on either side do things for the people who give them lots of money? Do you like the idea that Democrats might give better deals to unions than you? Why is it ok for the GOP to schill for the oil industry?

    Neither is ok, but only one side is defending the right of the rich to buy politicians.

    In violation of the Constitution, they are demanding 60% votes in the Senate on ridiculous things.

    It is sad that you don't know I'm right. That must be one of the 10%. ;)
     
  19. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    HUH? Is that what they are saying in conservo-land? :) The most interesting aspect of the what's wrong with the the Supreme Court Issue is that both liberals and conservatives are unhappy with their Arizona decision.
     
  20. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #20
    So if I have your understanding correct you want to be able to buy our government. Those with the most money can more or less buy what they want?

    It is sad that our election process as turned completely into those with the most money buy elections.
     
  21. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #21
    Democrats want to bring back the fairness doctrine, not to mention the number of people on the left that want to silence Beck, Rush and Fox News.


    Speaking of people on the other side giving lots of money, democrats seem to do a hell of a lot of fund raising. Do we have the stats on what how much money Wall Street has given to the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans?

    So corporations give money, I would prefer it that it was done by individuals but a corporation is a bunch of individuals anyway.

    I'm more worried about democrats voting in republican primaries (giving us candiates like McCain and Romney).



    Can you be more specific on how the republicans are violating the constitution?

    ----------

    Not at all, look how bad that turned out after corporation bought Obama.

    ----------


    You don't know? I forgot, you live in the liberal-land bubble.:rolleyes:
     
  22. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #22
    And that is how we know you lost it.

    We went into this economic depression because oh look the banks bought off the GOP and they removed all those restriction and regulation. Those same buying off is also why we can not get any much needed reform threw.

    Oh you want to explain the pledge the GOP signed and by not signing said pledge they more or less are cut off from huge chunks of money.

    Damn those little facts getting in the way of your conservative right wing rant.
     
  23. classicaliberal, Jun 26, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2012

    classicaliberal macrumors regular

    classicaliberal

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #23
    The constitution is not decidedly broad, it's purposefully broad. It's primary purpose was to place limits on the federal government. It gave a specific list (enumerated powers) of everything the federal government was allowed to do, and everything else was unconstitutional unless amended accordingly.

    The constitution is a soulless piece of parchment, but I'd argue that this is where you find it's simplistic beauty. It's clear, black and white, simple and to the point. Unfortunately, in modern society it's largely ignored, or redefined in order to make it easier to pass legislation without the proper popularity to justify amendment. As a consequence, the document means less and less each year as our courts spend an increasing amount of time upholding existing or creating their own unconstitutional precedents.


    Could you point me to a specific clause of the constitution which provides the basis for this position?
     
  24. ericrwalker macrumors 68030

    ericrwalker

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    Location:
    Albany, NY
    #24
    Then we took back the house, and in November we'll take back the white house and congress. I having a celebration party on Janauary 20th 2013 and you're invited.

     
  25. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #25
    Got it. You want to go back to how things were that got us into this Depression.

    I love GOP and right wing logic. Lets go back to what got us into this mess. Damn the facts.
     

Share This Page