The Instigator
Lookingatissues
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
pressman57
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 600 times Debate No: 71461
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Lookingatissues

Pro

America's courts have always been viewed by politicians as a place where their particular agendas and their ideologies could be used by those in political office to succeed in carrying out their particular agendas without the need to obtain the citizens approval and with this in mind politicians have attempted to stack the lower and higher courts with judges that they felt were sympathetic to their views.
For example, Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempted to stack the Supreme Courts with his justices so as to assure rulings in his favor when he was in office. But since Supreme Court justices are subject to the same human fragilities and personal political prejudices their decisions need to be reviewed and overturned when those decisions are determined to be faulty that they handed down since those decisions effect the lives of all citizens.
England once thought it expedient to have a government body which could overturned the courts decisions, "Judicature Act of 1873 "....in England, the act of Parliament that created the Supreme Court of Judicature ( q.v.) and also, inter alia, enhanced the role of the House of Lords to act as a court of appeal....."Should America put in place the same ability that England once thought proper and expedient to do.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely....Lord Action
The Supreme Court Justices are the determiners of what laws America's citizens live under, Justices having their Jobs for life grants then too much power for human being to hold over other human beings.
pressman57

Con

My contention is that the Constitution already provides a way to circumvent the Supreme Court: a constitutional amendment. The point can be made that constitutional amendments are extraordinarily difficult to achieve, and that point is valid, but the framers of the Constitution intended it to be that way. Congress makes the laws. The President enforces them (with veto power). The judiciary interprets them, and granted, these people hold extraordinary power, but the "buck" must stop somewhere.
Debate Round No. 1
Lookingatissues

Pro

The rulings from the Supreme Court has pushed progressivism to extreme Lengths permitting individual rights/ freedoms, that permits citizens to act out their most aggressive animal- like behavior in the public square under the guise of "Freedom of expression." The Supreme Court has handed down decisions that have eliminated almost all personal responsibility for behaving civilized towards your fellow man and have promoted the ideas displayed so often today of The "ME" generation, a society now exists where the police are looked upon a the villains and the Thugs are looked upon as the victims of unjust laws. The Supreme court has a lot to answer for to society for the conditions that society finds its self in today and liberal Justices setting on the Supreme Court Benches for life assured of their positions are the reason as no matter how far they venture into extreme progressivism in their rulings they are immunized from having to pay any consequences for the wreckage caused by their decisions. Can we recall America, before the elite liberal Supreme Court justices made everything better....
pressman57

Con

Whether or not the Court is Liberal or not is beside the point, the topic is whether or not their decisions should be subject to be(ing) overturned, therefore re-writing the Constitution and abandoning the checks and balances implemented by the Constitution's framers. I advanced the argument that a Constitutional amendment is a way to do that now, and that argument has been ignored.
Debate Round No. 2
Lookingatissues

Pro

While you are right, The subject that I asked ,"Should Supreme Court Justices decisions be subject to be overturned was the question and that few amendments have succeeded,
" I found that, Throughout the history of the Constitution,....only.... 27 changes have been made through the Amendment process. Amendments are not easy to pass...."
U.S. Constitution Online
Liberal Supreme Court Justices have been able to find through their reading into the constitution, rights that weren't originally written in the constitution by the authors.
The fact that the constitution has proven so hard to amend enforces the point that Supreme Court Justices with life- time appointments, are the final arbitrators of what is constitutional and what isn't without any concern for their positions.
I wrote in one of my posts,"There's a Intellectual elite group in this country that are set apart and unique from all other human beings. What sets this elite group apart, its this groups unique job security which defers upon them the ability to be more authoritarian granting them an absolute power over society since they have no fear of losing their positions...."If these Supreme Court justices didn't hold life-time positions needed amendments to the constitution might have been easier to have passed and the Supreme Court Justices wouldn't feel so free with their liberal interpretations of the constitution.
Since their word on what is constitutional and what isn't, and since these Supreme Court justices are subject to the same prejudices and political bias that all other humans are subject to, their decisions should be reviewed by another body and subject to repeal by that body.
pressman57

Con

As I mentioned previously, Constitutional amendment are difficult to pass for a reason, and that reason is stability in government. It is the same reason the Constitution's framers wanted an independent Judiciary. Our system of government is stable and it works. Take as an example the Roosevelt administration. In the early thirties FDR stacked the court with those of like minds, yet the National Recovery Act was deemed by this court to be unconstitutional. An independent Judiciary is critical as a check on political power.

Let's not tinker with something so important.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Lookingatissues 1 year ago
Lookingatissues
Pro's rebuttal : The Supreme Court Justices, you claim are the rightful determiners of the constitution and the laws under which all citizens are to be bound. Yet you would protest a body such as the Senate because they're, "Power hungry..." and you suggest that the Supreme Court Justices aren't "Power Hungry," and rule unbiased by personal interests and prejudices.
H.L. Mencken enlightened us on his opinion on judges, he wrote in" Notes on Democracy,"...Judges are so often chosen for purely political reasons, even for the Supreme Court .... Thus the bench tends to be filled with duffers, and many of them are also scoundrels, as the frequent complaints against their extortions and tyrannies testify." The Supreme Court has become a "Political Process,"... The political process thus becomes a mere battle of rival rouges." ...."....The sovereign mob( those elected to public office,)....must employ agents.... (Supreme Court Justices)..... to execute its will... The agents may have ideas of their own, based upon interests of their own, and the means at hand to do so and get what they will."
Laws written by man stand up and are appropriate for a period of time and as evidence is obtained by time indicates a revision is needed in the laws and the courts, different methods have to be put in place to adjust the laws governing and relating to the decisions of the Supreme Court and to maintain its legitimacy.
Amendments have proven too burdensome and thus ineffective in reigning in liberal/ progressive, Supreme Court Justices in their interpretations of the constitution.
Posted by wsmunit7 1 year ago
wsmunit7
Absurd. And hand that power over to who? The Senate? Probably the most power hungry, influence peddled to group in the USA? There already exists a method of overturning a Supreme Court decision. Its called a constitutional amendment.
No votes have been placed for this debate.