Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Mythology of the Supreme Court

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The Supreme Court's recent decision on prayer at government meetings reminds me that Supreme Court "season" is upon us, and for the next two months or so, we can expect to see the court decide on a variety of cases that can have profound impacts on the lives of citizens and non-citizens alike. The court's decision in Town of Greece vs. Galloway has produced a lot of commentary on both sides, with much discussion about the dynamics between justices, and how Justice Kennedy must have been in a pro-prayer mood that day, since his decisions appear to be made on a variety of unknowable whims.

Nearly all of this commentary contains the assumption that it is perfectly normal, and probably laudable, that the Supreme Court has the power to decide the legality of virtually everything under the sun, from the death penalty to where local governments can build strip malls.

If there was ever any doubt that public schooling has been an immense success when it comes to conditioning children to blindly accept even the most implausible myths of governance, we only need look to the high regard in which most Americans hold the Supreme Court. The fact that nine modern philosopher kings are empowered to sit in judgment of every American law and custom, right down to whether or not a city council meeting, in a town virtually no American could find on a map, can include some bland prayer time, is uncritically accepted. It troubles no school child that he is taught that democracy is the source of legitimacy for all governments one minute, and then the next minute is told he should fully trust nine lawyers in robes in Washington, D.C. to have the final word on law for 300 million Americans.

The proposition that nine people should tell 300 million people what sorts of laws they should make is rather ludicrous on its surface, but the justification largely rests on the assertion that the judges are somehow above politics and make decisions based on nearly pure reason. Political scientists and most people with experience in the legal profession no doubt know this is nonsense, but the average American is far more likely to be accepting of the long-standing myth that the court is a sort of backstop that prevents "bad" American laws from being allowed to stand. "Sure," they might say, "Congress and the president, which are infected by vulgar politics, can do many horrible things, but the Supreme Court will dispassionately evaluate them and decide laws strictly on their legal merits."

This view of the court is of course hopelessly fanciful, and the truly political nature of the court is well documented. Its politics can take many forms. For an example of its role in political patronage, we need look no further than Earl Warren, a one-time candidate for president and governor of California, who was appointed to the court by Dwight Eisenhower. It is widely accepted that Warren's appointment was payback for Warren's non-opposition to Eisenhower's nomination at the 1952 Republican convention. The proposition that Warren somehow transformed from politician to Deep Thinker after his appointment is unconvincing at best. Or we might point to the famous "switch in time that saved nine" in which Justice Owen Roberts completely reversed his legal position on the New Deal in response to political threats from the Franklin Roosevelt administration. Indeed, Supreme Court justices are politicians, who behave in the manner Public Choice theory tells us they should. They seek to preserve and expand their own power.

The court, jealous of its power, and reluctant to hand down decisions that might actually cause the court to lose prestige, is at times careful to reflect the majority opinion regardless of how atrocious it might be. To see this, we need look no further than Korematsu vs. The United States in which the court declared it perfectly legal to round up American citizens and throw them into concentration camps.

The court forever plays a careful balancing act with both the public and with other branches of the federal government in which if continually pushes the bounds of federal power without rocking the boat to the point of calling its legitimacy into question among the majority of the population. Naturally, Congress and the presidency, themselves committed to untrammeled federal power, have no problem with most of this on most occasions, except perhaps in the details.

Bizarrely, however, the court has even managed to cultivate a reputation as a limit on the power of government, and that justices will rein in the state because it is committed, however imperfectly, to the Constitution of the United States. This is wishful thinking in the extreme, however, since the Constitution is nothing more than what the Supreme Court says it is, and this has been well established since Justice Marshall first introduced judicial review into the court's decisions. If the Constitution was designed to prevent rule by judges (which may or may not be the case), it has clearly failed in its mission. Moreover, the court acts to insert intellectual legitimacy into laws and policies that formed out of nothing more that interest group lobbying, political payoffs, and even outright corruption. Once these laws receive the imprimatur of the Supreme Court, they cease to be political acts, questionable in origin, and take on the life of perpetually established law and precedent.

The public's deference to the court and its decisions is the key factor in the court's immense power, and the myth of the court as the protector of what's left of the Constitution is especially powerful. But, as Ludwig von Mises noted in Liberalism, as an agent of the Federal government, the idea of the court as a friend to limited government is an absurdity:

The tendency to impose oppressive restraints on private property, to abuse political power, and to refuse to respect or recognize any free sphere outside or beyond the dominion of the state is too deeply ingrained in the mentality of those who control the governmental apparatus of compulsion and coercion for them ever to be able to resist it voluntarily. A liberal government is a contradictio in adjecto. Governments must be forced into adopting liberalism by the power of the unanimous opinion of the people; that they could voluntarily become liberal is not to be expected.

Naturally, the court does not limit itself at all, but it knows it is nonetheless limited by public opinion at least as well as anyone else. The court's strenuous efforts to maintain an aura of majesty and intellectual loftiness can be seen in its refusal to allow television cameras in its hallowed halls or any sort of direct observation by the public at large. The judges wear academic robes and sit on their high bench. They could just as easily do their jobs in business suits while sitting at the same height as everyone else. Of course, if that were the case, the justices would just look like the glorified county commissioners they are, and the court's propaganda war against the public is essential in maintaining its near total immunity from any meaningful oversight from anyone at all.

- Ryan McMaken -

https://mises.org...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations? Or even the notion of Separation of Church and State, which didn't exist until 1947, and then was used in an opposite means that it was intended to anyway in 1959. The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:39:17 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

The Supreme Court doesn't literally pass bills, but they can strike them down, which is no different than congress passing a bill repealing a previous law. So they do, in a sense, "make laws," but the scope of those laws is inherently limited.
Torton
Posts: 988
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:39:42 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.
Or even the notion of Separation of Church and State, which didn't exist until 1947, and then was used in an opposite means that it was intended to anyway in 1959.
What is the Establishment clause?
The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 1:19:15 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:39:42 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a clear violation of the states' rights. And the prohibition of people to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on religious views is also against it and the First Amendment.

But anyway, SCOTUS cannot constitutionally legalize stuff like that; that is why we have a congress.

Or even the notion of Separation of Church and State, which didn't exist until 1947, and then was used in an opposite means that it was intended to anyway in 1959.
What is the Establishment clause?

A clause that states that federal government cannot make a law establishing respecting a national religion. The Separation of Church and State is by no means supported in the Establishment Clause. It is not even outlined in any national document, and the phrase is derived from a private letter explaining how there will not be a national form of Christianity established. This phrase is used in the context that religion has complete protection from the state, and that any infringement upon it violates to garden wall set by God. And Thomas Jefferson was not even affiliated with the drafting and writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 3:57:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 1:19:15 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:39:42 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a clear violation of the states' rights. And the prohibition of people to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on religious views is also against it and the First Amendment.

LOL. The 14th Amendment violates States' rights. That's the greatest thing I've ever heard. States are subordinate to the national government. This is reflective of both what is and what ought to be.

The Constitution requires people in Alabama to recognize a married gay couple from New York under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court cannot and has never tried to force churches to conduct gay weddings, but it can force public servants to do so.

But anyway, SCOTUS cannot constitutionally legalize stuff like that; that is why we have a congress.

Congress - no one - gets to vote on rights. And marriage has been established as a civil right since at least the 1960s, possibly even earlier.

Or even the notion of Separation of Church and State, which didn't exist until 1947, and then was used in an opposite means that it was intended to anyway in 1959.
What is the Establishment clause?

A clause that states that federal government cannot make a law establishing respecting a national religion. The Separation of Church and State is by no means supported in the Establishment Clause. It is not even outlined in any national document, and the phrase is derived from a private letter explaining how there will not be a national form of Christianity established. This phrase is used in the context that religion has complete protection from the state, and that any infringement upon it violates to garden wall set by God. And Thomas Jefferson was not even affiliated with the drafting and writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:02:41 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:57:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 1:19:15 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:39:42 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a clear violation of the states' rights. And the prohibition of people to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on religious views is also against it and the First Amendment.

LOL. The 14th Amendment violates States' rights. That's the greatest thing I've ever heard. States are subordinate to the national government. This is reflective of both what is and what ought to be.

Look at American history and Founder intent. The States were desired to be superior to the federal government.

The Constitution requires people in Alabama to recognize a married gay couple from New York under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court cannot and has never tried to force churches to conduct gay weddings, but it can force public servants to do so.

The constitution cannot mandate something that it does not address.

But anyway, SCOTUS cannot constitutionally legalize stuff like that; that is why we have a congress.

Congress - no one - gets to vote on rights. And marriage has been established as a civil right since at least the 1960s, possibly even earlier.

I know, but SCOTUS being able to is against the constitution.

The government should not have the power to enforce or ban rights -- they should just be exercised freely without government interference.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:04:49 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:02:41 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:57:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 1:19:15 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:39:42 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a clear violation of the states' rights. And the prohibition of people to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on religious views is also against it and the First Amendment.

LOL. The 14th Amendment violates States' rights. That's the greatest thing I've ever heard. States are subordinate to the national government. This is reflective of both what is and what ought to be.

Look at American history and Founder intent. The States were desired to be superior to the federal government.

Um...no. We had that with the Articles of Confederation. It was a disaster. The Constitution was designed specifically to give the national government more power.

The Constitution requires people in Alabama to recognize a married gay couple from New York under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court cannot and has never tried to force churches to conduct gay weddings, but it can force public servants to do so.

The constitution cannot mandate something that it does not address.

Full Faith and Credit clause requires one state to recognize another's legal documents. This includes marriage licenses.

But anyway, SCOTUS cannot constitutionally legalize stuff like that; that is why we have a congress.

Congress - no one - gets to vote on rights. And marriage has been established as a civil right since at least the 1960s, possibly even earlier.

I know, but SCOTUS being able to is against the constitution.

SCOTUS struck down an unconstitutional ban. That's it. That's within their power.

The government should not have the power to enforce or ban rights -- they should just be exercised freely without government interference.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:07:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a clear violation of the states' rights.

Amendments of the Constitution are violations of the State's rights? Seriously?

And the prohibition of people to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on religious views is also against it and the First Amendment.

No, its not. She could have easily extricated herself from the situation by simply stating "I quit". It was plain to see she was making use of her office for the promotion of personal religious agenda, she was using State powers to establish her religion.

But anyway, SCOTUS cannot constitutionally legalize stuff like that; that is why we have a congress.

Congress has to work within the bounds of the Constitution. That is what each bill that crosses the SCotUS' desk has to pass. If not, it gets kicked back to Congress to rewrite.

Or even the notion of Separation of Church and State, which didn't exist until 1947, and then was used in an opposite means that it was intended to anyway in 1959.
What is the Establishment clause?

A clause that states that federal government cannot make a law establishing respecting a national religion. The Separation of Church and State is by no means supported in the Establishment Clause. It is not even outlined in any national document, and the phrase is derived from a private letter explaining how there will not be a national form of Christianity established. This phrase is used in the context that religion has complete protection from the state, and that any infringement upon it violates to garden wall set by God. And Thomas Jefferson was not even affiliated with the drafting and writing of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:07:21 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:04:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:02:41 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:57:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 1:19:15 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:39:42 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a clear violation of the states' rights. And the prohibition of people to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on religious views is also against it and the First Amendment.

LOL. The 14th Amendment violates States' rights. That's the greatest thing I've ever heard. States are subordinate to the national government. This is reflective of both what is and what ought to be.

Look at American history and Founder intent. The States were desired to be superior to the federal government.

Um...no. We had that with the Articles of Confederation. It was a disaster. The Constitution was designed specifically to give the national government more power.

Nope. Look at the records of the Continental Congress when they were drafting the Bill of Rights. You can clearly see that states were desired to have more power than the federal government.

The Constitution requires people in Alabama to recognize a married gay couple from New York under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court cannot and has never tried to force churches to conduct gay weddings, but it can force public servants to do so.

The constitution cannot mandate something that it does not address.

Full Faith and Credit clause requires one state to recognize another's legal documents. This includes marriage licenses.

I was referring to marriage itself, but whatever.

But anyway, SCOTUS cannot constitutionally legalize stuff like that; that is why we have a congress.

Congress - no one - gets to vote on rights. And marriage has been established as a civil right since at least the 1960s, possibly even earlier.

I know, but SCOTUS being able to is against the constitution.

SCOTUS struck down an unconstitutional ban. That's it. That's within their power.

There was a ban? I didn't know that.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:13:01 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:07:21 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:04:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:02:41 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:57:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 1:19:15 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:39:42 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:13:09 AM, Torton wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.
As I said to bballcrook, SCOTUS doesn't make laws; they determine the constitutionality of the cases (which in some instances are examinations of the law, but they never explicitly create them).

Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations?
The right for the state's ability to withhold marriages for same-sex couples is a pretty clear violation of the Equal Protection clause.

The Fourteenth Amendment is a clear violation of the states' rights. And the prohibition of people to refuse issuing marriage licenses based on religious views is also against it and the First Amendment.

LOL. The 14th Amendment violates States' rights. That's the greatest thing I've ever heard. States are subordinate to the national government. This is reflective of both what is and what ought to be.

Look at American history and Founder intent. The States were desired to be superior to the federal government.

Um...no. We had that with the Articles of Confederation. It was a disaster. The Constitution was designed specifically to give the national government more power.

Nope. Look at the records of the Continental Congress when they were drafting the Bill of Rights. You can clearly see that states were desired to have more power than the federal government.

This is such a ludicrous denial of history that I don't know what to tell you. The Constitution gives the national government the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, raise an army, have the highest court of all, regulate interstate conflicts, etc. It trumps the states in so many aspects. I invite you to being with the Federalist Papers.

The Bill of Rights was designed to limit abuses by the national government because no one realized that state governments were just as capable of abusing individuals. Fortunately, that was rectified.

The Constitution requires people in Alabama to recognize a married gay couple from New York under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court cannot and has never tried to force churches to conduct gay weddings, but it can force public servants to do so.

The constitution cannot mandate something that it does not address.

Full Faith and Credit clause requires one state to recognize another's legal documents. This includes marriage licenses.

I was referring to marriage itself, but whatever.

But anyway, SCOTUS cannot constitutionally legalize stuff like that; that is why we have a congress.

Congress - no one - gets to vote on rights. And marriage has been established as a civil right since at least the 1960s, possibly even earlier.

I know, but SCOTUS being able to is against the constitution.

SCOTUS struck down an unconstitutional ban. That's it. That's within their power.

There was a ban? I didn't know that.

I don't know how you didn't. US v Windsor struck down DOMA because it violated the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment (and the 14th).
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:20:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:13:01 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This is such a ludicrous denial of history that I don't know what to tell you. The Constitution gives the national government the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, raise an army, have the highest court of all, regulate interstate conflicts, etc. It trumps the states in so many aspects. I invite you to being with the Federalist Papers.

I suggest you look at past SCOTUS cases and direct quotes from the Congress. It is not a denial of history -- it is from in-depth research of history.

The Bill of Rights was designed to limit abuses by the national government because no one realized that state governments were just as capable of abusing individuals. Fortunately, that was rectified.

It was also meant to more empower the states. Just do some digging and look at the records.

I don't know how you didn't. US v Windsor struck down DOMA because it violated the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment (and the 14th).

I have only recently started keeping up with legislature and SCOTUS. I haven't done much research pertaining to this specific ruling.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:36:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:20:35 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:13:01 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This is such a ludicrous denial of history that I don't know what to tell you. The Constitution gives the national government the power to collect taxes, regulate interstate commerce, raise an army, have the highest court of all, regulate interstate conflicts, etc. It trumps the states in so many aspects. I invite you to being with the Federalist Papers.

I suggest you look at past SCOTUS cases and direct quotes from the Congress. It is not a denial of history -- it is from in-depth research of history.

Like Gibbons v Ogden and McCullough v Maryland?
The Constitution was necessary because the national government was too weak under the Articles.

http://legal-planet.org...

The Bill of Rights was designed to limit abuses by the national government because no one realized that state governments were just as capable of abusing individuals. Fortunately, that was rectified.

It was also meant to more empower the states. Just do some digging and look at the records.


I don't know how you didn't. US v Windsor struck down DOMA because it violated the Due Process clause of the 5th Amendment (and the 14th).

I have only recently started keeping up with legislature and SCOTUS. I haven't done much research pertaining to this specific ruling.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:48:28 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:36:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

The Constitution was written to establish a presiding body over the states, as the Articles of Confederation and Articles of Association failed. The Founders knew that the states needed to be regulated in some way, but ultimately the states ruled themselves. Thus the Bill of rRghts.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:51:04 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:48:28 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:36:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

The Constitution was written to establish a presiding body over the states, as the Articles of Confederation and Articles of Association failed. The Founders knew that the states needed to be regulated in some way, but ultimately the states ruled themselves. Thus the Bill of rRghts.

The Bill of Rights was a concession granted to the Anti-Federalists to try and get their support for ratification. It was designed to prevent the national government from encroaching on individual - individual, not state - liberty.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:54:11 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 2:59:18 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 2:43:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:

It is obvious that the Court abuses it's power. America is effectively an Oligarchy if 9 people can make things legal/illegal. Many fail to understand that this is why we have an elected Congress to make laws and not the unelected Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Court no power whatsoever to make legal decisions.

1) Show where they have made any law
2) The constitutional power of the SCOTUS is clear - and it is clear you don't understand it.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:54:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:51:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:48:28 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:36:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

The Constitution was written to establish a presiding body over the states, as the Articles of Confederation and Articles of Association failed. The Founders knew that the states needed to be regulated in some way, but ultimately the states ruled themselves. Thus the Bill of rRghts.

The Bill of Rights was a concession granted to the Anti-Federalists to try and get their support for ratification. It was designed to prevent the national government from encroaching on individual - individual, not state - liberty.

Again, read the records from the Continental Congress and the period of Constitution and Bill of Rights drafting and ratification. They were meant to unify yet protect the states.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:55:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Then explain why they were able to legalize gay marriage or abortion, even though there were no laws in regard to either of these situations? Or even the notion of Separation of Church and State, which didn't exist until 1947, and then was used in an opposite means that it was intended to anyway in 1959. The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.

YEa, you have no idea what you are talking about.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 4:56:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:54:47 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:51:04 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:48:28 PM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:36:37 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

The Constitution was written to establish a presiding body over the states, as the Articles of Confederation and Articles of Association failed. The Founders knew that the states needed to be regulated in some way, but ultimately the states ruled themselves. Thus the Bill of rRghts.

The Bill of Rights was a concession granted to the Anti-Federalists to try and get their support for ratification. It was designed to prevent the national government from encroaching on individual - individual, not state - liberty.

Again, read the records from the Continental Congress and the period of Constitution and Bill of Rights drafting and ratification. They were meant to unify yet protect the states.

I have. Similarly, I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers.

In order to even unify and protect the states, which only the 10th Amendment does, the national government has to be stronger than they are.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 7:59:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.

And Congress operates without ideological bias? What planet are you living on lol? The people on the Supreme Court are basically indistinguishable from members of Congress, which is the entire point. They vote pretty much along party lines, at least when the issues matter. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the ideological makeup of SCOTUS was decided in a sensible way, but it's not. Its ideological makeup is largely random, based purely on which presidents happen to be in office when a justice steps down or dies. You couldn't construct a more arbitrary system if you tried (okay, you probably could, but still). It's electoral college-level dumb. Anyone who says that it's the best possible system just lacks imagination. Of course, sometimes justices do go against their party's position, which is often enough to tip the vote the other way. But it's hard to predict when they'll do so, even when you are familiar with their ideology and voting history. This is because the whole process is far more subjective than Supreme Court advocates are willing to admit.

In any case, we should be skeptical of Supreme Court rulings on a purely statistical basis, given how often justices vote against each other. Any time there's a split decision one of two things must be true: (1) some of the justices are either incompetent, corrupt or otherwise unable to do their job properly or (2) the Constitution is too vague to be open to objective interpretation. In neither case is the existence of the Supreme Court really justifiable. And of course, split decisions are the rule, not the exception.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court does have one thing going for it to my mind: it has the potential to settle otherwise intractable disputes. The country is deeply divided on a number of important issues, and it's not really feasible that we could reach a decision on those issues without something like the Supreme Court.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 8:04:50 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 4:02:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Also, the Supreme Court is not and should not be democratic.

So people as a group cannot be counted on to respect the constitution, yet they can be counted on to elect the presidents who nominate the justices who are approved by the Senators who are elected by the population at large? Makes sense.
The-Voice-of-Truth
Posts: 6,542
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 8:50:51 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 7:59:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 3:15:56 AM, The-Voice-of-Truth wrote:
The Court should not have that power. That is why we have a Congress. They make laws based on the Constitution. The Court does it based on ideological bias.

And Congress operates without ideological bias? What planet are you living on lol? The people on the Supreme Court are basically indistinguishable from members of Congress, which is the entire point. They vote pretty much along party lines, at least when the issues matter. This wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the ideological makeup of SCOTUS was decided in a sensible way, but it's not. Its ideological makeup is largely random, based purely on which presidents happen to be in office when a justice steps down or dies. You couldn't construct a more arbitrary system if you tried (okay, you probably could, but still). It's electoral college-level dumb. Anyone who says that it's the best possible system just lacks imagination. Of course, sometimes justices do go against their party's position, which is often enough to tip the vote the other way. But it's hard to predict when they'll do so, even when you are familiar with their ideology and voting history. This is because the whole process is far more subjective than Supreme Court advocates are willing to admit.

I know Congress acts on ideological bias, but they are democratically elected by the will of the People. They represent what the People want.

In any case, we should be skeptical of Supreme Court rulings on a purely statistical basis, given how often justices vote against each other. Any time there's a split decision one of two things must be true: (1) some of the justices are either incompetent, corrupt or otherwise unable to do their job properly or (2) the Constitution is too vague to be open to objective interpretation. In neither case is the existence of the Supreme Court really justifiable. And of course, split decisions are the rule, not the exception.

Totally agree.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court does have one thing going for it to my mind: it has the potential to settle otherwise intractable disputes. The country is deeply divided on a number of important issues, and it's not really feasible that we could reach a decision on those issues without something like the Supreme Court.

That is what it was originally intended to do.
Suh dude

"Because we all know who the most important snowflake in the wasteland is... It's YOU, champ! You're a special snowflake." -Vaarka, 01:30 in the hangouts

"Screw laying siege to Korea. That usually takes an hour or so." -Vaarka

"Crap, what is my religion again?" -Vaarka

I'm Rick Harrison and this is my pawn shop. I work here with my old man and my son, Big Hoss, and in 23 years I've learned one thing. You never know what is gonna come through that door.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 10:19:57 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 8:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:02:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Also, the Supreme Court is not and should not be democratic.

So people as a group cannot be counted on to respect the constitution, yet they can be counted on to elect the presidents who nominate the justices who are approved by the Senators who are elected by the population at large? Makes sense.

Guess what? Neither the president nor the Senators were originally directly elected either.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 10:21:29 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 10:19:57 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:02:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Also, the Supreme Court is not and should not be democratic.

So people as a group cannot be counted on to respect the constitution, yet they can be counted on to elect the presidents who nominate the justices who are approved by the Senators who are elected by the population at large? Makes sense.

Guess what? Neither the president nor the Senators were originally directly elected either.

Are you implying that we should drop democracy in favor of fascism?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 10:24:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 10:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:19:57 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:02:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Also, the Supreme Court is not and should not be democratic.

So people as a group cannot be counted on to respect the constitution, yet they can be counted on to elect the presidents who nominate the justices who are approved by the Senators who are elected by the population at large? Makes sense.

Guess what? Neither the president nor the Senators were originally directly elected either.

Are you implying that we should drop democracy in favor of fascism?

I'm telling you your objection doesn't make sense with respect to the Constitution. Too much democracy is not a good thing.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 10:32:00 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 10:24:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:19:57 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:02:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Also, the Supreme Court is not and should not be democratic.

So people as a group cannot be counted on to respect the constitution, yet they can be counted on to elect the presidents who nominate the justices who are approved by the Senators who are elected by the population at large? Makes sense.

Guess what? Neither the president nor the Senators were originally directly elected either.

Are you implying that we should drop democracy in favor of fascism?

I'm telling you your objection doesn't make sense with respect to the Constitution. Too much democracy is not a good thing.

I agree, but that doesn't mean we need to settle for appointed judges with life-time tenure telling us what we can do until they die.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2016 10:35:17 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/18/2016 10:32:00 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:24:23 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:21:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 10:19:57 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/18/2016 8:04:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/18/2016 4:02:49 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Also, the Supreme Court is not and should not be democratic.

So people as a group cannot be counted on to respect the constitution, yet they can be counted on to elect the presidents who nominate the justices who are approved by the Senators who are elected by the population at large? Makes sense.

Guess what? Neither the president nor the Senators were originally directly elected either.

Are you implying that we should drop democracy in favor of fascism?

I'm telling you your objection doesn't make sense with respect to the Constitution. Too much democracy is not a good thing.

I agree, but that doesn't mean we need to settle for appointed judges with life-time tenure telling us what we can do until they die.

Then that means every branch of government will be subject to the fleeting whims of the uneducated mind. This is unacceptable.