Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is iappropriate for SCOTUS to be required to validate sensible progressive ideas?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is iappropriate for SCOTUS to be required to validate sensible progressive ideas?

    How tiresome, clumsy, limiting and pathetically fawning is this absurdist concept of ‘separation of powers'?

    Well let me tell you ya pathetic pomposities: it’s real tiresome, very clumsy, excruciatingly limiting and unbecomingly fawning, that’s what it is!

    What’s the matter with people?
    Shouldn’t ya just trust your legislature?
    Where’s the concept derive from anyway?
    Oh yeah the bloody Magna Carta I suppose! One piece of parchment followed by 800 years of insufferably slow social progress - give me strength!

    Seriously though, as I’ve endlessly belaboured in the WWII forum I’ll hopefully be getting back into some volunteer assistant tutoring at tertiary level at some time in the next 238 years.

    Supposedly military history only.
    However I think I’ll just do what I did forty years ago and completely and blatantly ignore academic guidelines, applicable approaches, suggested methodologies and appropriate topics and just discuss WHATEVER THE HELL I want to!
    All at the dear old Australian taxpayers (what a bunch of suckers) expense (volunteer hell! Show me the money baby!)

    Now back in the glory days (Post childhood / Pre- Demigod) I remember vigorous discussion about the strange role this Supreme (errr…ummm… I thought there was only one…..) Court plays on the American political and social landscape.

    Without dragging my introductory nonsense out too long, can I get some opinions from US (and others if they have them on this topic) posters about just why obviously sensible and fair progressive agendas have to be seemingly and endlessly vetted, pondered by, validated by and given a gravitas-laden seal of approval by this body ?

    Is it appropriate?
    Can’t the conservatives just ‘get it’ in the first place and not challenge inevitable change unbecomingly?

    The US governmental system might I remind people, was essentially and above all else an enlightenment experiment - could be the whole idea needs simple reviewing through a couple of judicious constitutional amendments starting with one that enshrines social (liberal) progress as an unalienable ( inalienable) right?

    Yes, someone give me their number I need to talk to a judge!

    Regards lodestar

  • #2
    No, the SCOTUS shouldn't be "validating" political ideas, Progressive or otherwise that do not conform to the intent of the Constitution.

    Basically, the entirety of the Social Welfare state starting with The New Deal and then onwards was not within the prevue of the federal government.

    Left, Right, or Center, the US federal government was never intended to become a central power and control the nation. Instead, it was intended more as a weak central government controlling and refereeing 50 separate states that would be free to experiment with what worked best for them.

    Comment


    • #3
      The American Constitution was an experiment in making the ideals of the enlightenment law. Unfortunately it is clear that those laws only extended the benefits to the enlightened. It is not surprising that at the time only white males with property were considered capable of translating enlightened law into social progress.

      At the time the constitution was written the ancient concepts surrounding the idea of spiritual existence were not questioned. There was however some understanding that religion did not have a monopoly on the answers to fundamental questions. Religious sectarianism was thus excluded from the political process. The idea that men were born and not made however still held considerable sway over the imagination of 18th century thinkers. It is hard for us today to understand how deeply the idea of the nobility of birth was ingrained in the subconsciousness of the people who wrote the constitution.

      Few if any of the participants in formulating the constitution would have considered it likely that minorities, woman, or lower class males were capable of fully participating in self governance. The level of ignorance concerning the nature of the relationship between environment and mental development is not surprising. Almost all of the science related to genetics, physiology, and the brain is a recent development. Believing that the mind was a product of the spirit has an effect on political thinking that cannot be underestimated.

      The idea that men are worthy of ruling by virtue of their birth is an idea that is still with us. What has changed is that it no longer is tried to noble birth but is now considered almost an accident. It is best exemplified by how we view genuis. While the contribution to genius that comes from the physical structure of the brain cannot be questioned it is only within the last few years that we have come to fully appreciate how much of that physical structure is a result of culture. Without the nourishment and stimulation of civilization even Einstein or any other prodigious genius would appear to us as a near idiot.

      We are still suffering from the exclusion of certain classes, races and genders from the benefits of inclusion in the ranks of those capable of benefiting from enlightenment. Into this void the Courts have often been asked to venture. Perhaps the best example is desegregation. When faced with the closure of schools to prevent integration the courts unconstitutionally imposed taxes to provide public education. The courts ruled that discrimination was a sufficient evil that it was of a higher constitutional right to provide equal justice than to abide by the rules concerning taxation and state rights. Many other examples exist of how the idea of birth right has jeopardized justice but I won't go into them. Suffice it to say that the progress of civilization has been distorted by ancient ideas perhaps from prehistory.

      There are reasonable grounds for arguing against the courts overstepping their constitutional mandate but there is little reasonable about the people who often force it to do so. It is also true that the courts have often been less than progressive and that is simply evidence of the limitations of men.
      We hunt the hunters

      Comment


      • #4
        It would take an amazing depth of ignorance about the US Constitution to ask such a question.

        See Federalist #78 and educate yourself.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Is it appropriate for SCOTUS to be required to validate sensible progressive ideas?

          Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
          The American Constitution was an experiment in making the ideals of the enlightenment law. Unfortunately it is clear that those laws only extended the benefits to the enlightened. It is not surprising that at the time only white males with property were considered capable of translating enlightened law into social progress.

          Few if any of the participants in formulating the constitution would have considered it likely that minorities, woman, or lower class males were capable of fully participating in self governance.

          We are still suffering from the exclusion of certain classes, races and genders from the benefits of inclusion in the ranks of those capable of benefiting from enlightenment. Into this void the Courts have often been asked to venture. .
          Good stuff and thanks for your detailed response regarding the nature of the C18th Enlightenment.

          You are quite right in that those writing the constitution were only enlightened' in their way and for their time.

          However, universal, inclusionists (hey! how come spell check says this ain't a word?) they most certainly were not.
          This situation no doubt was a factor influencing the Supreme Court adopting an often activist role.

          As you say 'Into this void the Courts have often been asked to venture'.

          What I suggest in my OP is that it should not be necessary to the extent it has been.
          As I asked: "why obviously sensible and fair progressive agendas have to be seemingly and endlessly vetted, pondered by, validated by and given a gravitas-laden seal of approval by this body ?"

          The US should be inherently progressive. Much of the time however it's like pulling bloody teeth to get progress!

          Regards lodestar

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
            It would take an amazing depth of ignorance about the US Constitution to ask such a question.

            See Federalist #78 and educate yourself.
            Your a well educated and intelligent man so I'm sure that you understand what Hamilitan meant when he said "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." and "pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice." Coming from a man with a strong faith in Capitalism and class mobility these words may seem out of place. They may even seem contradictory but that is the unfortunate nature of the limitations of law.

            The extent to which the Supreme Court and Federal Courts have supremacy over the independance of the States was contentious when the constitution was written and remains contentious but in general Hamilton's views on a strong central government were upheld especially in the case of the Supreme Court.

            The question of which if any provisions of the constitution superceed others is the problem that cannot be resolved. The only provision in the constitution that makes it possible to ultimately decide the fundamental issues are those dealing with how the constitution itself can be altered. The dangers of a constitutional convention exceeding the purpose for which was called is why they are so rare. I think the one thing on which liberals and conservatives should be able to agree is that it is better that issues be resolved before they reach the Supreme Court or call for a constitutional convention.
            We hunt the hunters

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
              Your a well educated and intelligent man so I'm sure that you understand what Hamilitan meant when he said "In the general course of human nature, a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." and "pestilential breath of faction may poison the fountains of justice." Coming from a man with a strong faith in Capitalism and class mobility these words may seem out of place. They may even seem contradictory but that is the unfortunate nature of the limitations of law.

              The extent to which the Supreme Court and Federal Courts have supremacy over the independance of the States was contentious when the constitution was written and remains contentious but in general Hamilton's views on a strong central government were upheld especially in the case of the Supreme Court.

              The question of which if any provisions of the constitution superceed others is the problem that cannot be resolved. The only provision in the constitution that makes it possible to ultimately decide the fundamental issues are those dealing with how the constitution itself can be altered. The dangers of a constitutional convention exceeding the purpose for which was called is why they are so rare. I think the one thing on which liberals and conservatives should be able to agree is that it is better that issues be resolved before they reach the Supreme Court or call for a constitutional convention.
              in Federalist #78, Hamilton assured the States that the Court would have no power to interpret the Constitution. As the Supreme Law, the Court would have to ascertain its meaning...
              The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

              Ascertain means to find the precise meaning, not to interpret meaning into it.

              The United States Supreme Court has no constitutional power to interpret the Constitution in any manner other that its original meaning.

              The Court has an obligation to uphold the Constitution as it is written and amended.

              They have an absolute obligation to never make rulings in order to "validate sensible progressive ideas." This would be rule of man, not rule of law and wholly antithetical to the nature of a constitutional republic.
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                "rule of man" being the key phrase I suspect.

                In the end I suppose it comes down to having more faith in men or the law. Certainly an issue worth discussing some other time.
                We hunt the hunters

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wolfhnd View Post
                  "rule of man" being the key phrase I suspect.

                  In the end I suppose it comes down to having more faith in men or the law. Certainly an issue worth discussing some other time.
                  Man is transient, arbitrary and capricious. Law is not.
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    Man is transient, arbitrary and capricious. Law is not.
                    And the 14th clearly says that no one can be deprived of rights without due process and all have equal protection under the law.

                    A man is arbitrary and capricious...and sometimes whines and gnashes his teeth when the law is applied correctly.
                    #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                    Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                    Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Crash View Post
                      And the 14th clearly says that no one can be deprived of rights without due process and all have equal protection under the law.

                      A man is arbitrary and capricious...and sometimes whines and gnashes his teeth when the law is applied correctly.
                      I no longer respond to posts which fall below the indicated.level...

                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                        I no longer respond to posts which fall below the indicated.level...
                        The 14th Amendment is written in English. It alone clearly contradicts any argument you've posted for days...



                        You love to go back to Madison...but Madison didn't have the balls to deal with slavery and instead kicked the can down the road. Although he struggled with slavery he wrote emancipation should be “gradual, equitable & satisfactory to the individuals immediately concerned, and consistent with the existing & durable prejudices of the nation.”

                        .....your hero obviously believed that laws should be consistent with society's prejuduces! The very thing you've been whining about...How do you reconcile that?
                        #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                        Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                        Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lodestar View Post
                          Good stuff and thanks for your detailed response regarding the nature of the C18th Enlightenment.

                          You are quite right in that those writing the constitution were only enlightened' in their way and for their time.

                          However, universal, inclusionists (hey! how come spell check says this ain't a word?) they most certainly were not.
                          This situation no doubt was a factor influencing the Supreme Court adopting an often activist role.
                          Not the courts job or authority to "interpret" the Constitution. If they go there, then whose "interpretation" do we accept? Theirs? Ours? Obama's? Some militant, racist right wing whack job?

                          Like government itself, SCOTUS has taken itself beyond the acceptable boundaries.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Not the courts job or authority to "interpret" the Constitution. If they go there, then whose "interpretation" do we accept? Theirs? Ours? Obama's? Some militant, racist right wing whack job?

                            Like government itself, SCOTUS has taken itself beyond the acceptable boundaries.
                            Affirmed that people can get healthcare and gays can marry. Racist flags get taken down. Trade deal. ...


                            I'm surprised a FoxNews hand puppet can even get out of bed.
                            #occupyarmchairgeneral.
                            Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. Demosthenes.
                            Against logic there is no armor like ignorance. Laurence J. Peter

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              the interpretation of the constitution by Scotus was not the same in 1954 as in 1896 .

                              An interpretation is politics : Scotus has not the right to make politics.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X