@TBR - No I don't really care about the ruling. What I am practicing is something called open-mindedness - you don't reject new ideas just because they seem odd at first. They may actually turn out to be good ones.
Liberal/progressives like to argue that said issue is a good idea because it is a new idea... Let me rebuttal with one question.
Should we go ahead and have full marriage equality and legalize adult incest? Don't reject it just because they seem odd at first, be open minded.
Steven8, I am a Liberal/Progressive and have never argued something like that before. In fact, one user above who is a Conservative was the first person here to suggest taking it into consideration because it's a new idea and he has yet to hear any opposing positions on the subject. So you might want to think critically before jumping to conclusions about who will take what position on an issue because they happen to be affiliated with a particular political party. Oh, and not make asinine comparisons.
@briantheliberal - I am still waiting on anyone with any rational argument why abolishing the most importation safeguard of our constitution would be a good thing. Do they want to abolish all lower courts too?
@TBR - I'm not endorsing the idea that the world is flat or that every conspiracy theory is true. But I have never heard arguments for/against the Supreme Court, so why should I have to pick a side? For someone who wants the Electoral College gone (which is even older than the SCOTUS), I believe there may be a better replacement for it.
@Varrack - So, to follow that tangent for a sec. When I was younger the Electoral College seemed unfair and preposterous. While, being self-serving, I would say eliminating it would help democrats tremendously, it IS a system that thoughtfully balances rights for low population areas with high-population areas. If it were eliminated, there would be no interest in courting the votes of a great many rural voters.
Our government, the actual system is very elegant. Its a little like the moon landing. Every year I gain a little more respect for how great an accomplishment it truly is. Not divine, it was just built by thoughtful people making a sane and self-correcting government. That is really something. All the complaining that comes (and I will say this - from the right) seems to dismiss how well it DOES work. So, when someone on the right says "we should disband the SCOTUS" because they don't like a decision on same sex marriage - and at the same time wistfully tell me about the past, and how great our country is - I want to scream 'bulsh1t'. You (not you Varrack) are the ones that don't get what the authors of the government were doing
I'd say my biggest issue with the SCOTUS is the amount of power given to just a few people and the lack of dismissal that it brings. I'd like laws to be decided by the population more often than the court. Instead of 300 million residents exercising their democratic right to vote whether same-sex marriage is legal in which states, it's decided by 9 people. If the majority of Americans opposed a particular action, their voice can be overruled by a majority of 5 people in the Supreme Court.
TBR - a replacement of the EC would mean a popular vote, which most accurately represents the will of the people. The EC tries to give extra power to small states, but this is unfair when we consider that the proportional population. In the 2004 election, Colorado had nine times the population of Wyoming but only three times the Electoral votes. This means that Wyoming citizens' votes count more toward the election of president. There's also the issue of solid states. Imagine, TBR, if you lived in Alabama, which consistently votes red every time. If you vote blue, your vote would have little significance and would ultimately be swept away each election. Isn't that frustrating? Even if you decide to go red it wouldn't matter, because the outcome would already be decided in that state. It just needs a 51% majority so that the entire state goes one way, and the 49% has no effect on the election. I could go on but there are just too many power issues in the EC for me to like it.
@Varrack - The SCOTUS has a balance to it TOO. If the population dislike a ruling, the people can amend the constitution. Again, it is a balance that is very elegant. The justices, while powerful, don't make laws, only can dismiss a existing law. They can not change the constitution, only interpreter it. If the will of the people is that the interpretation is wrong, they still have recourse.
@Varrack - The balance of the EC provides IS for the lower populous states. We both agree on that, and realize that the logical outcome is that votes of the individual are therefor NOT equal. My voice in a populous state is not as strong (just by a percentage of the EC vote) as a less populous state. No argument. Where we have room to work on the discussion is in "safe" states. The implication in that case is, the minority party is without a voice in a heavy skewed state. The offset to this real loss is that other minoritys exist elsewhere in the union.