US Supreme Court too liberal by representation

[Red1966]

You calling anyone a lazy ass is priceless.

 

[SmokeyDan]

thanks for defeating your own argument, retard.

Not at all. It certainly does matter. At present too few regions of the nation are represented. The US Supreme Court should not be dominated by North eastern catholics and jews.

 

[SmokeyDan]

We're gonna need a whole lot more Justices.

Nope, just a little more spread out than 8 of 9 from the north Atlantic states.

 

[SmokeyDan]

the evangelicals are nuts and have no business holding office - you would also fall into this category.

Christians have had they're time running the planet and fucked it for all of us for a good period of time.

Wouldn't you feel better if there was one or two professed atheists on the court? There should be.

 

[earnest_voice]

Wouldn't you feel better if there was one or two professed atheists on the court? There should be.

That would be a start - their latest decision to cut limits on campaign donations is moronic. If anything, politics needs less money.

 

[SmokeyDan]

One of the major problems with the court is judges writing law. Law is to be written by representatives of the people, not the courts.

You're right of course, a supreme court decision isn't technically a law. But it is in all but name.

It binds everyone to a certain set of actions, responsibilities, or restricts from the same. Or it gives the people rights and limits state actors.

I'd call all that law.

The gets to write out what other people have to/cannot do.

I'd call that law.

 

[SmokeyDan]

That would be a start - their latest decision to cut limits on campaign donations is moronic. If anything, politics needs less money.

This thread isn't about corporate personhood. But if it were, I'd tell you that major corporations would receive less support from protestant Christians, than catholics.

Protestants aren't as friendly to the idea of highly centralized business interests as papists are.

 

[Doer]

Not at all. But let us not pretend that a persons background affects their jurisprudence.

I'm asking for a representative court that reflects the makeup of America on substance, not superficial things like penises and vaginas. Whit or black and brown skin.

I'm asking for a court that actually reflects the national makeup.

That is handled by the President. He reflects the national make up, having won the VOTE.

You have no right to get your way. The Constitution calls for SCOTUS and they are President Appointed but approved by Congress. Congress is the Will of the People and the Will of the States.

But you have the right to cry about it.

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Your antiquated opinions give it away anyway, and your Andy Griffith reference supports it. You know who references Andy Griffith? My dad, you know what generation he's from? The most selfish, self obsessed, take all give nothing generation American has ever birthed; Baby Boomers.

You had your chance partna, get used to the sideline

not a boomer........reach into the Green Party's handbook for another angle

 

[Doer]

That would be a start - their latest decision to cut limits on campaign donations is moronic. If anything, politics needs less money.

If anything Politics needs more Money and less Lying.

 

[Doer]

Nope, just a little more spread out than 8 of 9 from the north Atlantic states.

You think SCOTUS is it. No. It is only the final say. And SCOTUS will pick and choose what they even will SAY.

Most of the Law is adjudicated in the lower Courts. Some go the Districts' Appeal Court. A few, each year go to SCOTUS.

 

[Doer]

You want more SCOTUS. Here is more SCOTUS.

The district courts exercise original jurisdiction over—that is, they are empowered to conduct trials in—the following types of cases:

• Civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States;[8]
• Certain civil actions between citizens of different states;[9]
• Civil actions within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction of the United States;[10]
• Criminal prosecutions brought by the United States;[11]
• Civil actions in which the United States is a party;[12] and
• Many other types of cases and controversies[13]

For most of these cases, the jurisdiction of the federal district courts is concurrent with that of the state courts. In other words, a plaintiff can choose to bring these cases in either a federal district court or a state court.

 

[Red1966]

Sometimes the court's opinions are directly counter to the law, take away rights of the people, and empower states to violate the Constitution. The SCOTUS decision allowing States to seize private property and resell it for profit is a good example.

 

[Doer]

Sometimes the court's opinions are directly counter to the law, take away rights of the people, and empower states to violate the Constitution. The SCOTUS decision allowing States to seize private property and resell it for profit is a good example.

You are no Constitutional Scholar. So, the only thing that violates the Constitution is what SCOTUS has ruled that is does.

All else is TBD.

A Conservative only SCOTUS would be a real nightmare. We've had that, too.

The beauty of it is, each Justice gets to decide when they are done and ready to retire...or they die.

It is not a Legislature decision, like in Ireland.

That is the UNIQUE about it.

 

[SmokeyDan]

You think SCOTUS is it. No. It is only the final say. And SCOTUS will pick and choose what they even will SAY.

Most of the Law is adjudicated in the lower Courts. Some go the Districts' Appeal Court. A few, each year go to SCOTUS.

The easy stuff gets decided in lower courts.

The tough questions make it to the SCOTUS.

One of the elements on if a case can reach that level is there has to be disparity among the districts. Meaning laws are enforced differently in different parts of the country.

All of you who act like it's no big deal that there is only one from outside northeastern states (California), that the court is all catholic and jews.

If the court were composed of all Baptists and Mormons, from the south east and one from Utah, you'd be freaking the fuck out, as would I.

If there were no women of minorities, you'd freak out.

This is just as big or bigger. Yet you act like I'm being absurd.

 

[earnest_voice]

This thread isn't about corporate personhood. But if it were, I'd tell you that major corporations would receive less support from protestant Christians, than catholics.

Protestants aren't as friendly to the idea of highly centralized business interests as papists are.

Religions are corporations too - run for profit

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Your antiquated opinions give it away anyway, and your Andy Griffith reference supports it. You know who references Andy Griffith? My dad, you know what generation he's from? The most selfish, self obsessed, take all give nothing generation American has ever birthed; Baby Boomers.

You had your chance partna, get used to the sideline

I agree. their argument is they all worked so hard. of course.......there were jobs....real jobs. they are getting their SS now, and their fat pensions, watching NCIS, and getting fat. the unborn toil to pay their Medicare. those unborn will NOT have real jobs.

 

[Doer]

You are being absurdly bigoted, is all. This is not a religious governance.

 

[Red1966]

You are no Constitutional Scholar. So, the only thing that violates the Constitution is what SCOTUS has ruled that is does.

All else is TBD.

A Conservative only SCOTUS would be a real nightmare. We've had that, too.

The beauty of it is, each Justice gets to decide when they are done and ready to retire...or they die.

It is not a Legislature decision, like in Ireland.

That is the UNIQUE about it.

Your contention that the Court supersedes the Constitution is based in politics, not Constitutional interpretation. Countless laws are ruled constitutional or unconstitutional without any input by SCOTUS. What, exactly, defines a Constitutional Scholar? Agreement with your position?

 

[Doer]

The easy stuff gets decided in lower courts.

The tough questions make it to the SCOTUS.

One of the elements on if a case can reach that level is there has to be disparity among the districts. Meaning laws are enforced differently in different parts of the country.

All of you who act like it's no big deal that there is only one from outside northeastern states (California), that the court is all catholic and jews.

If the court were composed of all Baptists and Mormons, from the south east and one from Utah, you'd be freaking the fuck out, as would I.

If there were no women of minorities, you'd freak out.

This is just as big or bigger. Yet you act like I'm being absurd.

Only what SCOTUS wants will SCOTUS take. The tough questions are decided in the Lower Courts.

Then you can attempt and an appeal, but SCOTUS may refuse to even hear it. And when the do, the ruling is most often, very narrow.