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

  • wolfhnd
    replied
    Arguments based on social conservatism or liberalism are not nearly as persuasive as those based on more rational positions. A historical pattern of conservatives forcing courts to exceed their constitutional mandate because of civil rights issues and of liberals facing restrictions on their agendas because their views are unconstitutional fairly well negates any chance of either agenda making a case that either are primarily concerned about lawful justice.

    Making the case that equal access to health care a fundamental right automatically implies that society has the resources to do so. Whatever your political convictions may be focusing on the economic issues seems to me more likely to produce reasoned discourse.

    Leave a comment:


  • drivin-fool
    replied
    Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
    And they have no right to legislate which in fact they are doing, only Congress has that right SCOTUS and the POTUS do not, no matter how they interpret the Constitution and they have done exactly that last week!
    And in all likelihood they will have even more liberals added to the bench once Ginsburg retires or dies (either of which could happen at any time) so we have that to look forward to in the coming years.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    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.
    And they have no right to legislate which in fact they are doing, only Congress has that right SCOTUS and the POTUS do not, no matter how they interpret the Constitution and they have done exactly that last week!

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    er
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    WRONG : Obamacare is not a right : it is an obligation which is infringing civil rights of the Americans .

    It is the same for same sex marriage .
    At this point in the debate only a conservative wackjob would claim Obamacare violates civil rights. Do you know the difference between a cat and a dog? Gosh darn...the Civil Rights Act itself forces businesses to sell to people they don't want to while the ACA forces business and individuals to buy insurance.

    "Five years ago, after nearly a century of talk, decades of trying, a year of bipartisan debate, we finally declared that in America, health care is not a privilege for a few but a right for all," Obama


    Through the Act, American's have the RIGHT to purchase Health insurance without pre-existing conditions being taken into account whether they are able to purchase it or how much they have to pay.

    The US healthcare system was in a death spiral. Only people that were sick were purchasing health insurance...causing premiums to sky rocket...so even fewer people bought in until they were sick...causing premiums to shoot up even faster...causing even few people to buy until they were sick...leaving more sick people in the pool...causing Insurers to leave the market...causing even more people to not have insurance.

    CEO ranked this as the #1 threat to US sovereignty...over terrorism, economics, anything. The Conservatives had ZERO answers to the problem...save one Mitt Romney...

    Simple really...to get cheaper premium increases more healthy people have to be in the pool. To get more healthy people in the pool it has to be affordable for more people.



    If you've got a better idea on how American's could resolve the problem then Obamacare...I'm all ears!!! Finally a Conservative that will put his neck on the line and propose the solution....I eagerly await to hack it off!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • Trung Si
    replied
    Originally posted by ljadw View Post
    WRONG : Obamacare is not a right : it is an obligation which is infringing civil rights of the Americans .
    Couldn't have said it better, to me however, it amounts to extortion.

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    Originally posted by Crash View Post
    Affirmed that people can get healthcare
    WRONG : Obamacare is not a right : it is an obligation which is infringing civil rights of the Americans .

    It is the same for same sex marriage .

    Leave a comment:


  • ljadw
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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...

    Leave a comment:


  • Crash
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • wolfhnd
    replied
    "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.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Doctor
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X