SCOTUS scuttlebutt

SCOTUS scuttlebutt

Let's begin with Maureen Dowd (why not? ):

This court, cosseted behind white marble pillars, out of reach of TV, accountable to no one once they give the last word, is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history.
It has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes.
(source)

Was it ever anything else? Was Roe v Wade the resolution of a contentious civil question?
(Indeed, was Brown v Board of Education? )

Noone seems to think so.

Raw power-politics has come to the fore. You're either on one side or the other. That is to say, nothing matters but winning.

You'll forgive me, if I demur?
Roe v Wade was decided in 1973. And the contention has mostly abated. Right?
Of course not! But it should have, according to Dowd and her ilk.
(Consider the recent op-ed by Prof. David Dow... See here and here.)

Should I mention Newt Gingrich's thoughts on these matters? Need I? (We remember what scorn and derision the Left heaped upon the notion of redress from judicial activism, don't we? )

Of course, the current (this nano-second!) view is that Conservative/Libertarian thought is bad; Liberal/Progressive thought is good. And actions must precede thought, else we're conscribed by principle... Which might frustrate our immediate desires.

I could accept such, from someone who sincerely believed in pure democracy. But there doesn't seem to be such a beastie left in existence.

I could accept such, from someone who sincerely believed in the virtues of a dictatorship. Alas, either timidity or hypocrisy precludes them from identifying themselves...

I could accept such, from those who would be kings!

Of course, I'd reject their claims.

Who's ox is getting gored? Answer that question, and you know whether SCOTUS ever legislates from the bench.

It's interesting to hear some Dems talking this way now. We've been saying this for decades at least, and we were always "wrong". Now there's a chance that SCOTUS may shoot down Obamacare, and all of a sudden-----.

The difficulty, mjm, is finding what it takes to convince the "Libs" and "Dems" what's at stake: Our republic!

Mostly, they think they've won the debate and conservatives are just a few stragglers impeding progress. Remember how the 14th Amendment became the rationale for "anchor babies"? Policy aside, that was certainly not the intent of those who wrote that amendment; and some of us still think that intent matters...
Were "abortion-on-demand" and "anchor babies" all that came from the penumbra of rights prescribed and protected by that amendment, I'd probably not care much. But what I've seen is a kaleidoscopic view.
Throw in gay rights. I'm pretty much okay with that. But to get there there's more...

I don't mean to reiterate the "slippery slope" arguments: I want to mention the "avalanche" theory proposed by the Lib/Dems: An overwhelming majority of opinion supports ... ;so, ... is right, necessary and unquestionable.
There is no real right, only majoriantarianism? (Except when one disagrees with their opinions...or is in some minority not previously "protected" and non-dependant...)
Can noone see how weak this position is?
You could justify slavery on this basis.

(Of course, you'd only do so if you were an idiot or a genius. I await -with bated breath- the replies by Macallan and Saquinemoon.)

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

The difficulty, mjm, is finding what it takes to convince the "Libs" and "Dems" what's at stake: Our republic!

Mostly, they think they've won the debate and conservatives are just a few stragglers impeding progress. Remember how the 14th Amendment became the rationale for "anchor babies"? Policy aside, that was certainly not the intent of those who wrote that amendment; and some of us still think that intent matters...
Were "abortion-on-demand" and "anchor babies" all that came from the penumbra of rights prescribed and protected by that amendment, I'd probably not care much. But what I've seen is a kaleidoscopic view.
Throw in gay rights. I'm pretty much okay with that. But to get there there's more...

I don't mean to reiterate the "slippery slope" arguments: I want to mention the "avalanche" theory proposed by the Lib/Dems: An overwhelming majority of opinion supports ... ;so, ... is right, necessary and unquestionable.
There is no real right, only majoriantarianism? (Except when one disagrees with their opinions...or is in some minority not previously "protected" and non-dependant...)
Can noone see how weak this position is?
You could justify slavery on this basis.

(Of course, you'd only do so if you were an idiot or a genius. I await -with bated breath- the replies by Macallan and Saquinemoon.)

Bolded: The Dred Scott Decision. It's been done.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I want to mention the "avalanche" theory proposed by the Lib/Dems: An overwhelming majority of opinion supports ... ;so, ... is right, necessary and unquestionable.There is no real right, only majoriantarianism?

While the replies by Macallan and Sanguinemoon don't arrive, I tell you - welcome to "democracy", where quantity overwhelms quality.
Very surprised with you being surprised on that.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

I want to mention the "avalanche" theory proposed by the Lib/Dems: An overwhelming majority of opinion supports ... ;so, ... is right, necessary and unquestionable.There is no real right, only majoriantarianism?

While the replies by Macallan and Sanguinemoon don't arrive, I tell you - welcome to "democracy", where quantity overwhelms quality.
Very surprised with you being surprised on that.

Problem: SCOTUS has been used more often than not to overturn democratically voted on decisions. The losing side in a regular voting process decides they don't like the way the vote came out, so they take it to court. It goes up the chain of courts until it reaches SCOTUS, and there five men get to determine what is good for over three hundred million of their fellow Americans whether they like it or not. Take a good look at some of the decisions handed down, and realize that there is no way the American people, in a regular vote, ever would have voted that way. Five men overruled the majority of Americans time and again, and what those five men decide becomes law.

For our foreign friends, I offer the names of the justices of the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice John Roberts (Conservative and Bush 43 appointee)
Justice Antonin Scalia (Conservative and Reagan appointee)
Justice Anthony Kennedy (Nearly always the Swing Vote, but Conservative on most issues, but does have a Liberal streak in him; Reagan appointee)
Justice Clarence Thomas (Most Conservative on the Court, lone African-American and a George H.W. Bush (41) appointee)
Justice Ruth Bader Gingsburg (Liberal, has cancer, and was an Bill Clinton appointee)
Justice Stephen Breyer (Liberal, a Bill Clinton appointee)
Justice Samuel Alito (Conservative, a George W. Bush (43) appointee)
Justice Sonya Sotomayer (Liberal, lone Hispanic on the Court, an Obama appointee)
Justice Elana Kagan (Liberal, was Obama's Solicitor General, an Obama appointee)

There are a few Justices who have retired and play no role in the SCOTUS anymore:
Justice John Paul Stevens (Liberal, was most Senior Liberal until his recent retirement, is 91 years old, was a Gerald Ford appointee)
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Conservative, was the 1st female on the Court, a Reagan appointee)
Justice David Souter (Liberal, was a George H. W. Bush appointee, notable because while a Conservative appointed him, Souter was a Liberal)

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Problem: SCOTUS has been used more often than not to overturn democratically voted on decisions.

And that's exactly what it's for. If the democratically voted on decision violates the constitution it needs to be struck down and congress needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's consistent.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

It goes up the chain of courts until it reaches SCOTUS, and there five men get to determine what is good for over three hundred million of their fellow Americans whether they like it or not.

No. SCOTUS decides what's consistent with existing law. Quite a different thing.
And this illustrates quite nicely why they're appointed for life instead of being elected over and over again.

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Problem: SCOTUS has been used more often than not to overturn democratically voted on decisions.

And that's exactly what it's for. If the democratically voted on decision violates the constitution it needs to be struck down and congress needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's consistent.

Like pretty much all the anti-terrorism laws.

Originally posted by ensbb3:

Originally posted by Macallan:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Problem: SCOTUS has been used more often than not to overturn democratically voted on decisions.

And that's exactly what it's for. If the democratically voted on decision violates the constitution it needs to be struck down and congress needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with something that's consistent.

Like pretty much all the anti-terrorism laws.

Exactly. Notice that I did not say they're doing a good, or even a consistent job

I'm always surprised when something is politicized.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

For our foreign friends, I offer the names of the justices of the Supreme Court.

Just for detail, tell that judge of the Supreme Court of yours that her name is not Sotomayer but Sottomayor.
Well, in case of she's a legitimate member of the family, something that I doubt very much.

A statistician offers this.

Belfrager offers spelling tips for surnames...

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Belfrager offers spelling tips for surnames...

At other parts of the world it's called genealogy.
Yes, I know, is not a known historical discipline in the US. You can't really study it with John Smith II and John Smith III, can you?

But we do have kennel clubs!

Problem with the Supreme Court is that it depends on who's in charge. Brown v. Board of Education over turned the decision made during the case Plessy v. Ferguson, where it decided that seperate but equal is constitutional. But the Brown v. Board of Education decided that seperate does not equal equality.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

A statistician offers this.

Belfrager offers spelling tips for surnames...

It gets better. I knew a guy who's last name was Ridgeway. He told me that a schism in the family caused part of the family to break away, and the breakaway part spells it Ridgway. The part of the family with the "E" doesn't speak to the part of the family without the "e", but since it's their chosen surnames both names are spelled right.

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

But we do have kennel clubs!

I know, there was anything more at the Mayflower to preserve?

The abject (sic) lesson of the failure of socialism comes to mind…

Randy Barnett (yes, that guy…) says the obvious about "judicial activism"…