Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Supreme court does not consider the constitution.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by cupofjoe1962, Jun 13, 2008.

  1. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    The supreme court is a complete joke.

    You know who is going to vote left and who is going to vote right.
    Kennedy is the only wild card.... he could go either way.

    Does the constitution have anything to do with their decisions?

    They vote their feelings.... the constitution has nothing to do with their
    decisions.
  2. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,525
    Likes Received:
    12
    Ratings:
    +13 / 0 / -0

    Actually, this USSC isn't bad....... It's actually leans right (which I like). If your talking about the recent GITMO decision, it's consistent with the historical standing. When it comes to habius corpus, there have been times in history they've actually acted with some stones, but it's usually been when the "pucker factor" is amp't way up. Despite the thread now, we're not close to that point. Ask any average douche bag here and they couldn't tell you the first fukcing thing about history of the supreme court and habius corpus rulings, but trust me, there is one.

    Apparently, if they feel sufficiently threatened, they'll act. If not, screw it, its a blood born right for everyone.
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2008
  3. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Well it's a chicken or egg question. Do our political leanings affect our interpretation or vice versa?

    The problem with this is that if someone interprets the constitution one way, you say that it is "because" they are a liberal or conservative and not "why" they are liberal or conservative.

    Maybe a better understanding of the constitution, it's context and its motives makes you a "liberal?"
  4. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    A better understanding of the Constitution would make you a conservative.
  5. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Except the exact opposite.
  6. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    How do you figure? The case we seem to think he's pissed off about, the Gitmo case, has been decided the same way 3 times now.

    Your biggest issue, and your point of refuge needs to be (IMO) whether or not it makes one a strict constructionist or a living documentarian.

    Now, if an SCJ can look at the Constitution and find the part where abortion is legal, or there's an explicit right to privacy...are they a strict constructionist or a living documentarian? And further--why is it that the same people who can suddenly find "partial birth abortion" in there, can't figure out that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" doesn't mean "except by 17 million stupid laws passed by congress to keep track of people so that in case of an actual revoloution because we've finally pushed them too far they won't be able to mount an effective attack because we've got all their guns registered and can swoop down on them".
  7. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    Most constitutional scholars agree that a non-interpretivist stance is the correct way to look at the constitution. That the constitution, which had provisions in it that were not enforced until years after the second continental congress. That, along with the intent of the framers as expressed through letters etc., and the broad, open, passages obviously means that the constitution is a declaration of aspirations that must be interpreted using the context of the times and the intent of the laws.

    Quartering British soldiers, for example, is totally irrelevant to todays society. Just as the right of the people to bear arms is arguably a reference to the necessity of militias in a time when there was no standing U.S. Army. The "shadowy prenumbras" which outline a very clear intent for a right to privacy and sovereignty of person means that if a fetus is not yet medically a human being, the constitutional right to personal privacy allows the mother to do whatever she wants to her body

    The simplistic way the right talks about the constitution (which is usually just to ***** about abortion and guns) is not only stupid but completely hypocritical. Show me where the constitution says that the Supreme court should halt an election recount and basically decide who the president is. Show me where it says that the aggrandizement of the office of President is something the court should be deferential towards. Show me where Habeas Corpus isn't something that really matters. In a large nation based on laws, precedent decides far more complex areas of law than does the text of the constitution, and that's the way it has to be, as common sense dictates that a few pages written over 200 years ago cannot possibly cover all situations. That is what the Supreme Court is for.

    The lack of understanding of U.S. History amongst the right is amazing, albeit predictable, especially when you have talk radio parrots crowing about something they don't even remotely understand. The Supreme court is a lifetime appointment for a reason: they are supposed to rule based on their interpretation of the constitution many times against the tyranny of the majority. If it weren't for non-interpretivists Women wouldn't have gotten the vote, as wouldn't blacks, and school segregation would still be alive and well. These are things that were clearly aspired principles when the constitution was written.

    Here's the Ninth Ammendment, which the right refuses to acknowledge exists:

    And here's what Madison said about it when it was ratified:

    Doesn't really get any more clear than that.

    Oh and by the way, the Justice who has overturned more congressional legislation than any other is Antonin Scalia. So that "judicial activist" crap is the same hollow accusation that it has been for the last 100 years, a way to try and undermine a decision you disagree with.
  8. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Not understanding US history is not a problem unique to the right, there are just as many on the left that are ignorant as to the founding principles of this country. How many people would pass a basic civics test right now?

    I basically agree with your post other than that, though its also wrong to say a liberal has a better understanding of constitutional law than a conservative. For the two examples you bring up, there is a legitimate argument on both sides. For gun rights, its the interpretation of how to read the second amendment, if the clause prior to "keep and bear arms" limits that right to militias, or if it should be read separately and means a fundamental right of all citizens to carry. For abortion it is a legitimate question as to whether the fetus is entitled to the rights you discussed, or if those rights only extend to the mother. In both cases we're talking about rights that ARE enumerated in the Constitution, and interpretation of those enumerated rights, not questions of rights that are not enumerated, which you correctly point out are protected by the way the document was written.
  9. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    I agree there are strong arguments on both sides of the issue. I didn't want to get into a left v. right pissing contest about it either, but my original post was sort of saying what you did better; that the right's accusation that any decision which doesn't go their way is "judicial activism" is bogus.

    Of course there are many on the left that lack an understanding of history, but I think that basically neither side reads the constitution and forms an understanding of it reactively. We learn the history, who the founding fathers were, what their intentions were and have established the political prism through which we view the constitution well before we begin to look at the text of the constitution analytically.

    Both sides bring their personal opinions into how they read the constitution. It's no coincidence that gun owners care the most about the second amendment and that "states rights" are only an issue when it is politically expedient for the politician complainging about them. The same dichotomy exists amongst Christian fundamentalists and those who believe in allegory.

    The notion that the "Supreme Court doesn't consider the constitution" because they made a decision that disagrees with the OPs personal politics is ludicrous. Especially when the SC is 5-4 "strict constructionist" aka "Republican."
  10. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    "Strict constructionist" aka "Republican"...???!!!

    Now that is ludicrous!

    Republicans...especially the animal that calls itself such today...could not be further from the definition of a "constructionist". Bush and his fellow traitors lay claim to the name "Republican" but they are wreckless radical fascists who would prefer to wipe their azzes and piss on the Constitution than use it as a tool for moral guidance and law enforcement. Barry Goldwater and Dwight Eisenhower - even Nixon - would have today's Republican leaders rightfully tried and executed for treason.
  11. Wildo7

    Wildo7 Totally Full of It

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,851
    Likes Received:
    34
    Ratings:
    +39 / 2 / -0

    which is why I believe the "strict constructionist" is a mythical creature invoked when things aren't going one's way. There is no such thing as a literal application of the constitution in todays complex and ever-changing society. There would be too many unanswered question, and the 9th amendment would have been violated.
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,002
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +186 / 6 / -23


    This happens every single time that the SC delivers a decision that does not satisfy the appetites of the right.. it is what it is, the highest court of the land who decides on legal issues.. the decision is based on a law passed by congress which was determined as unconstitutional..

    Our CIC has not exactly been a friend of the constitution, on many times he and his minions have done things that have been overturned by the SC... the constitution has stood the test of time, and many battles.. the rest of these clowns are just temporary folks..

    As much as I do not agree with everything, to call them a joke is unamerican and against our basic form of gov't.. would you feel better if they just rubberstamped everything so we would all be happy?? Why don't you just leave this country and move to one where all is happy and smiley's abound.
  13. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    I tend to agree with you on that. But it's always a good idea, IMO, to stay close to the COnst.
  14. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0



    I don't know if I've ever talked about judicial activist judges. I know I've talked about bad judges (the ninth circuit springs to mind).


    But what makes it wrong simply because Scalia has overturned more legislation? That's the point of the court...to interpret laws based on the Constitution. No more, no less.

    As for the second amendment and standing armies--don't forget what they'd just been through. It's completely reasonable to believe they mean exactly what they wrote.

    Oh, and the supreme court election thing...don't forget, they didnt' ask to get involved. Gore's people are the ones who ran to the SC crying. At that point, they almost had to look at it. So they looked at existing Florida law, saw nothing in the US law, and boom, done.

    Oh, and btw--I see you put a cheap shot about "the right" b! itching about abortion, and I know I mentioned abortion--just don't forget that I'm pro choice. Technically, I don't give a crap, it's not up to me to tell you what you can do with your body.
    Personally, I don't like it, I really believe it's barbaric, especially partial birth abortions.
    But it's still not in the Constitution.
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2008
  15. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    Couldn't you just have said "renders a verdict someone doesn't like"? Because everyone gets upset about the SC occasionally. And you didn't see me wound up about this particular issue, the gitmo case. It was no shock, they'd already decided the same thing twice before...so Congress changed the law, and the SC ruled on the new law.
  16. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Well this is no fun, I agree with you 100%.
  17. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    Wake up GJAJ15 !

    When was the last time Clarence Thomas made a decision that did not
    favor the right?

    When was the last time Ruth Bader Gingsburg made a decision that did
    not favor the left?

    Do your really think that the consider the constitution?
    They take a passsage of the consitution and spin it to meet their needs.

    If everyone who did not agree with you left the country, then who would pay for your social programs?

    You don't agree with anything the commander and chief does.
    Why don't you hit the road ?

    You and Canada would be a perfect match !
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2008
  18. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0


    Actually, cuppa, Thomas and Scalia both make rulings not popular with the right. Not as frequently, but they do.
  19. cupofjoe1962

    cupofjoe1962 Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ratings:
    +33 / 12 / -2

    What about Ruth Bader Gingsburg ?
  20. otis p. driftwood

    otis p. driftwood Rookie

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,271
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Have no idea. I pay more attention to what Scalia and Thomas to, as I'm fans of theirs--especially Scalia. I don't really follow what the rest of the crowd up there do.
    Sorry.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>