US Supreme Court too liberal by representation

[Doer]

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?

The Supreme Court is the Constitution. They are in there, specifically as the final arbiter. They alone say what is or is not Constitutional. That burns many on both sides, but it is the UNIQUE about it

You have lay opinions but can't walk the walk.

A scholar is one who knows his stuff...not you.

 

[SmokeyDan]

Religions are corporations too - run for profit

Negative.

In a corporation profits goes to the shareholders.

Shareholders are analogous to church members.

Church members, they pay the majority of the tithes. Shareholders pay nothing once the purchase of the share is made, most are bought on secondary markets, and not directly from the company. Therefore, shareholders gain wealth at the expense of the corporation.

The exact opposite is true of the church and member relationship.

The profit of a church goes to do good works. Run a ministry for the homeless. Go help poor people in Africa or Latin America, or elsewhere.

They go to help their parishioners in many ways.

In a corporation extra money doesn't do anything like that.

 

[Doer]

Corporation use extra money to hire more people and grow jobs.

 

[Red1966]

The Supreme Court is the Constitution. They are in there, specifically as the final arbiter. They alone say what is or is not Constitutional. That burns many on both sides, but it is the UNIQUE about it

You have lay opinions but can't walk the walk.

A scholar is one who knows his stuff...not you.

So a Constitutional Scholar IS someone who agrees with you. The Supreme Court is a piece of paper? They are in there, specifically as the final arbiter, except when a lower court is the final arbiter They alone say what is or is not Constitutional, until a later Court overrules them, or the citizens amend the Constitution, I.E - Prohibition. Every turd is UNIQUE. Doesn't make it good. Pretending that SCOTUS is an altruistic body when the individual members are chosen SOLELY on their political persuasions is not realistic.

 

[earnest_voice]

The Supreme Court is the Constitution. They are in there, specifically as the final arbiter. They alone say what is or is not Constitutional. That burns many on both sides, but it is the UNIQUE about it

You have lay opinions but can't walk the walk.

A scholar is one who knows his stuff...not you.

Negative.

In a corporation profits goes to the shareholders.

Shareholders are analogous to church members.

Church members, they pay the majority of the tithes. Shareholders pay nothing once the purchase of the share is made, most are bought on secondary markets, and not directly from the company. Therefore, shareholders gain wealth at the expense of the corporation.

The exact opposite is true of the church and member relationship.

The profit of a church goes to do good works. Run a ministry for the homeless. Go help poor people in Africa or Latin America, or elsewhere.

They go to help their parishioners in many ways.

In a corporation extra money doesn't do anything like that.

A % of profit does goes to towards good works, agreed, but not all of it. Do you think all those lawyers defending pedophiles priests are working pro bono? Not a chance in hell defending scum like that

 

[Red1966]

Corporation use extra money to hire more people and grow jobs.

There's no such thing as "extra" money.

 

[Doer]

The main elements of govt are in the Constitution, including SCOTUS. SCOTUS has the final say. The entire Constitution has no meaning without SCOTUS. SCOTUS supplies the meaning not Partisan opinions

All else is your sophisty and personal attacks since you are so wrong headed with your opinions just like any Partisan, regardless of side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Tom Goldstein argued in an article in SCOTUSblog in 2010, that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions."[96] He points out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% were decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also pointed to several cases that defy the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.[97] Goldstein further argued that the large number of pro-criminal-defendant summary dismissals (usually cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or argument) are an illustration that the conservative justices have not been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein stated that the critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and be disrespectful of precedent, also lacks merit:

 

[Doer]

There's no such thing as "extra" money.

That was not my term. It was in answer to the false claim about Corporate "extra money" vis a vis the Church and extra money. Do try to keep up.

 

[Doer]

The funny thing is the PUBS were happy about SCOTUS under Bush.

They asked Florida, "What justification do you have to continue to re-count the vote after the Certification Date?"

No Answer. So, Bush won re-election.

IT IS THE SAME COURT NOW.

 

[Red1966]

The main elements of govt are in the Constitution, including SCOTUS. SCOTUS has the final say. The entire Constitution has no meaning without SCOTUS. SCOTUS supplies the meaning not Partisan opinions

All else is your sophisty and personal attacks since you are so wrong headed with your opinions just like any Partisan, regardless of side.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
Tom Goldstein argued in an article in SCOTUSblog in 2010, that the popular view of the Supreme Court as sharply divided along ideological lines and each side pushing an agenda at every turn is "in significant part a caricature designed to fit certain preconceptions."[96] He points out that in the 2009 term, almost half the cases were decided unanimously, and only about 20% were decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Barely one in ten cases involved the narrow liberal/conservative divide (fewer if the cases where Sotomayor recused herself are not included). He also pointed to several cases that defy the popular conception of the ideological lines of the Court.[97] Goldstein further argued that the large number of pro-criminal-defendant summary dismissals (usually cases where the justices decide that the lower courts significantly misapplied precedent and reverse the case without briefing or argument) are an illustration that the conservative justices have not been aggressively ideological. Likewise, Goldstein stated that the critique that the liberal justices are more likely to invalidate acts of Congress, show inadequate deference to the political process, and be disrespectful of precedent, also lacks merit:

Where was the personal attack? Funny you should make that claim when the only personal attacks I see are those you hurl at me. Quoting some hacks opinion doesn't prove anything. How was my disagreement "partisian"? Falsely labeling my statements and then attacking the label is a signal you've got no case.

 

[Red1966]

That was not my term. It was in answer to the false claim about Corporate "extra money" vis a vis the Church and extra money. Do try to keep up.

How does any of that negate my statement "There is no such thing as extra money."? Quit pretending you have said something intelligent.

 

[Red1966]

The funny thing is the PUBS were happy about SCOTUS under Bush.

They asked Florida, "What justification do you have to continue to re-count the vote after the Certification Date?"

No Answer. So, Bush won re-election.

IT IS THE SAME COURT NOW.

So Obama appointing Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan never happened?....lol.....

 

[tightpockt]

Sotomayor is a ardent leftist. She has had holdings as such.

In a country with 40-50% self identifying as evangelical christian, they should have a representative on the court.

With 90+ million in states with "southern culture" about 45 million as "mid - western" and those of the west outside of the Pacific Coast being mostly red states unrepresented. ..

There would be more people with conservative perspective deciding on the issues, numbnuts.

Instead, we have those raving traditional conservative northeastern catholics on the court as the sole christian persuasion.

And three jews with 5.5 million out of 340+million people in this nation.

One, maybe two Jews would be more than enough to remain representative.

Are you a total moron? Who cares about "representation"? This isnt the senate or the congress, this is the supreme court...they don't make laws, they're not there to represent any particular group. You want a clergy member on the supreme court to interpret the law? BTW the constitution doesn't change based on geography or religious affiliations.This thread is so fucking stupid. Nice bathroom selfie btw...ever hear of a pushup?

 

[Red1966]

Are you a total moron? Who cares about "representation"? This isnt the senate or the congress, this is the supreme court...they don't make laws, they're not there to represent any particular group. You want a clergy member on the supreme court to interpret the law? BTW the constitution doesn't change based on geography or religious affiliations.This thread is so fucking stupid. Nice bathroom selfie btw...ever hear of a pushup?

Quite a few people care about representation, witness such statements as "Five white men shouldn't make decisions on women's reproductive rights" (paraphrased from Reid, the moron who thinks they were all whites). By "interpreting" law, they are indeed making law. The Constitution does indeed change depending on who decides what it says. Witness restrictions on abortion becoming unconstitutional only 200+ years after it was written.

 

[tightpockt]

Quite a few people care about representation, witness such statements as "Five white men shouldn't make decisions on women's reproductive rights" (paraphrased from Reid, the moron who thinks they were all whites). By "interpreting" law, they are indeed making law. The Constitution does indeed change depending on who decides what it says. Witness restrictions on abortion becoming unconstitutional only 200+ years after it was written.

Politicians make laws. In some cases the Supreme court decides if those laws are legal. Obviously some justices lean left, others right. I'm not naive enough to think that politics don't play a role in their decisions but I don't think it has much to do with where they're from or which phony religion they were born into.

 

[Red1966]

Politicians make laws. In some cases the Supreme court decides if those laws are legal. Obviously some justices lean left, others right. I'm not naive enough to think that politics don't play a role in their decisions but I don't think it has much to do with where they're from or which phony religion they were born into.

While the wording of the Constitution is what it is, obviously, people interpret it differently based on their upbringing and viewpoint. Sometimes, the justices own statements after a decision indicate their rulings weren't based on the Constitution at all, but other factors, such as: "Elections have consequences". The recent election didn't change the Constitution at all, and is not germane to the meaning of the Constitution at all.

 

[SmokeyDan]

A % of profit does goes to towards good works, agreed, but not all of it. Do you think all those lawyers defending pedophiles priests are working pro bono? Not a chance in hell defending scum like that

Those scumbag priests deserve a fair trial, and the fairest one they can afford. Or their organization, which they dedicated their life to servicing. Yes they did something shitty, but if it can't be proven in court by the methods dictated, they deserve to continue. Probably in a poor third world country.

 

[SmokeyDan]

Are you a total moron? Who cares about "representation"? This isnt the senate or the congress, this is the supreme court...they don't make laws, they're not there to represent any particular group. You want a clergy member on the supreme court to interpret the law? BTW the constitution doesn't change based on geography or religious affiliations.This thread is so fucking stupid. Nice bathroom selfie btw...ever hear of a pushup?

Apparently people seem to think it is important to have blacks on the court, and women, oh and Hispanics also, only if they're liberal enough though.

There are three jews when they make up 1.7 percent of the nation.

Constitutional laws and principals aren't difficult, but sometimes the medical or technological issues they are deciding can be.

There are plenty of people who have both a JD and a MD or an advanced business degree and other qualifications as well. Clergy spend their life interpreting laws, so there is nothing strange about this. Many there too have a JD.

If justices representing groups of people within the nation is irrelevant, you wouldn't care if Ginsburgs seat was given to a white Methodist from Georgia?

 

[DonAlejandroVega]

Apparently people seem to think it is important to have blacks on the court, and women, oh and Hispanics also, only if they're liberal enough though.

There are three jews when they make up 1.7 percent of the nation.

Constitutional laws and principals aren't difficult, but sometimes the medical or technological issues they are deciding can be.

There are plenty of people who have both a JD and a MD or an advanced business degree and other qualifications as well. Clergy spend their life interpreting laws, so there is nothing strange about this. Many there too have a JD.

If justices representing groups of people within the nation is irrelevant, you wouldn't care if Ginsburgs seat was given to a white Methodist from Georgia?

no clergy....lol. see: Iran
they answer to Sky-Murderer, not We The People. 6 years and out. the most qualified; period.

when they try to slip a rabbi in, I will personally put lye in his Manichewitz

 

[SmokeyDan]

no clergy....lol. see: Iran
they answer to Sky-Murderer, not We The People. 6 years and out. the most qualified; period.

when they try to slip a rabbi in, I will personally put lye in his Manichewitz

I can take or leave the clergy.

I'd be equally fine with a priest, rabbi or imam.

I also think it should have an ardent atheist or two.

Broad representation and balance is my point.

Right now 3 jews and 6 catholics from the north east is too narrow and unbalanced to represent such a diverse nation.