What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

unofan said:
That's hilarious coming from the party that has voted to abolish the ACA what, 50 times now?
Click to expand...

You think that's funny? Presto!

Hans von Spakovsky, a Heritage Foundation fellow, last week argued that the Supreme Court should count the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's votes in cases in which the justices have already cast preliminary votes.
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
The confirmation mess started with Robert Bork.
Click to expand...

The current spate of confirmation messes started with Roe v Wade. No matter how "right" the details of the decision might have been, the simple fact is that the political process was short-circuited, and so we have never been able properly to settle the issue since. Much of the country was already heading in that direction anyway, and in a few more years we'd have seen the same outcome arise from democracy, not from some arbitrary document from seven non-elected figures. The fact that they relied on "emanations and penumbras" in particular was totally absurd. Even people who believe the Court should have decided the way it did shudder at how poorly "reasoned" the opinion was.

The pro-life people would have been heard, votes would have been cast, and however grudgingly, the outcome would have been accepted by all. Instead, every nominee since Roe v Wade has been subjected to a "litmus test" on whether their own predilections are more important than what the law says.


The solution could have been much simpler: while a woman cannot be forced to carry a fetus inside her against her will, that does not necessarily mean that the unborn child must be put to death as a result. Let the woman remove the unborn child yet keep the unborn child alive.

How?

That's not up to the Courts, that is up to the legislature....where it always should have been, all along.

Similarly with same-sex secular marriage: society was already moving that way anyway, we did not need the Court to impose its will on what should have been a legislative solution, as we were already in the process of deciding that way.

Why is it so hard for the Court merely to say, "we cannot rule one way or the other since the Constitution is silent; this situation must be resolved by legislative action." ???
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

meanwhile, if it is not behind a paywall, there is a well-written opinion piece here on the standoff between Apple and the Feds over the iPhone security issue:

Here’s the bottom line: In terms of the public debate, the technical details of what the Federal Bureau of Investigation is asking Apple to do are irrelevant. At the heart of the contest between Apple and the FBI is the fact that if a judge agrees, Apple can be forced to make the data on any iPhone available to any law-enforcement agency that demands it.

everyday users, who should be reminded that the question at hand is simply this: Do we want our government, and the governments of countless other countries, to have the ability to compel Apple—or any other technology company—to grant access to any of our data they request?

Focusing the debate on this point highlights scenarios like those outlined by Rep. Ted Lieu, a California Democrat who wrote in a letter supporting Apple that, “This FBI court order, by compelling a private-sector company to write new software, is essentially making that company an arm of law enforcement.”

Christopher Soghoian, principal technologist at the American Civil Liberties Union, echoes Mr. Lieu’s concerns. If the government wins, he says, it will have the authority “to deliver surveillance software directly into the computers and cellphones of Americans everywhere.”

“This doesn’t just apply to laptops and cellphones,” he adds. “With the Internet of Things we’re inviting a large number of companies into our homes to place cameras and microphones into our bedrooms and children’s rooms, and any of those companies could be asked to turn those on.”

A more sophisticated tracking and spying device than the smartphone you carry in your pocket every day has never been invented. Do we want a legal precedent that can transform the “Internet of Things” into an “Internet of Surveillance”?
Click to expand...

Right now, it appears that the government doesn't even have the legal right to demand that Apple unlock the iPhone, so that Congress would need to pass a law first to authorize it. Then, that law would need to survive a constitutional challenge.
 
FreshFish said:
The current spate of confirmation messes started with Roe v Wade. No matter how "right" the details of the decision might have been, the simple fact is that the political process was short-circuited, and so we have never been able properly to settle the issue since. Much of the country was already heading in that direction anyway, and in a few more years we'd have seen the same outcome arise from democracy, not from some arbitrary document from seven non-elected figures. The fact that they relied on "emanations and penumbras" in particular was totally absurd. Even people who believe the Court should have decided the way it did shudder at how poorly "reasoned" the opinion was.

The pro-life people would have been heard, votes would have been cast, and however grudgingly, the outcome would have been accepted by all. Instead, every nominee since Roe v Wade has been subjected to a "litmus test" on whether their own predilections are more important than what the law says.


The solution could have been much simpler: while a woman cannot be forced to carry a fetus inside her against her will, that does not necessarily mean that the unborn child must be put to death as a result. Let the woman remove the unborn child yet keep the unborn child alive.

How?

That's not up to the Courts, that is up to the legislature....where it always should have been, all along.

Similarly with same-sex secular marriage: society was already moving that way anyway, we did not need the Court to impose its will on what should have been a legislative solution, as we were already in the process of deciding that way.

Why is it so hard for the Court merely to say, "we cannot rule one way or the other since the Constitution is silent; this situation must be resolved by legislative action." ???
Click to expand...

You're going to be burned at the stake for that post. FWIW, I agree with you.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

FreshFish said:
The current spate of confirmation messes started with Roe v Wade. No matter how "right" the details of the decision might have been, the simple fact is that the political process was short-circuited, and so we have never been able properly to settle the issue since. Much of the country was already heading in that direction anyway, and in a few more years we'd have seen the same outcome arise from democracy, not from some arbitrary document from seven non-elected figures. The fact that they relied on "emanations and penumbras" in particular was totally absurd. Even people who believe the Court should have decided the way it did shudder at how poorly "reasoned" the opinion was.

The pro-life people would have been heard, votes would have been cast, and however grudgingly, the outcome would have been accepted by all. Instead, every nominee since Roe v Wade has been subjected to a "litmus test" on whether their own predilections are more important than what the law says.


The solution could have been much simpler: while a woman cannot be forced to carry a fetus inside her against her will, that does not necessarily mean that the unborn child must be put to death as a result. Let the woman remove the unborn child yet keep the unborn child alive.

How?

That's not up to the Courts, that is up to the legislature....where it always should have been, all along.

Similarly with same-sex secular marriage: society was already moving that way anyway, we did not need the Court to impose its will on what should have been a legislative solution, as we were already in the process of deciding that way.

Why is it so hard for the Court merely to say, "we cannot rule one way or the other since the Constitution is silent; this situation must be resolved by legislative action." ???
Click to expand...

Uh, huh. The legislature in Texas is forcing a 13 year old girl to have her rapists child. This is with Roe vs. Wade intact. **** your legislature.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

The political process was also "short circuited" in Brown v Board. You don't get to vote on fundamental rights; that's kinda the whole point of judicial review.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

joecct said:
You're going to be burned at the stake for that post. FWIW, I agree with you.
Click to expand...

This area has been relatively martyr free for a good while now. Please don't ruin that.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

FreshFish said:
Similarly with same-sex secular marriage: society was already moving that way anyway, we did not need the Court to impose its will on what should have been a legislative solution, as we were already in the process of deciding that way.

Why is it so hard for the Court merely to say, "we cannot rule one way or the other since the Constitution is silent; this situation must be resolved by legislative action." ???
Click to expand...

Is it not correct for the Court to make sure that laws are equally applied to all citizens?

So if any legislature- city, state, federal, passes a law that does not allow for equal treatment under the law- it's the Courts responsibility to say that or not. It may appear that they are legislating from the bench, but in fact it's fixing bad legislation.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

FreshFish said:
The current spate of confirmation messes started with Roe v Wade.


Why is it so hard for the Court merely to say, "we cannot rule one way or the other since the Constitution is silent; this situation must be resolved by legislative action." ???
Click to expand...

I completely agree. The Constitution says nothing about blacks sitting in buses and restaurants with us whites, and the Court had no business butting in. OK, there might be some language suggesting they have equal rights, but show me where it says those rights can't be separate but equal. The legislatures in Alabama and Mississippi were going to fix that situation eventually all on their own time, so the Supremes had no reason to meddle. Particularly since the Feds have no right to shove laws down our throats.

Dammit.
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
Similarly with same-sex secular marriage: society was already moving that way anyway, we did not need the Court to impose its will on what should have been a legislative solution, as we were already in the process of deciding that way.

Why is it so hard for the Court merely to say, "we cannot rule one way or the other since the Constitution is silent; this situation must be resolved by legislative action." ???
Click to expand...

A)It's just marriage. It's always just been marriage. My marriage performed by a judge whom I worked for is as valid and binding as any done by a priest, rabbi, imam, or secular humanist minister.

B) The 14th Amendment equal protection clause covers this. So the Constitution isn't silent.

C) Loving already spelled out why marriage is a fundamental right and not something that should be voted on. Kennedy could have almost just copied that decision verbatim, replacing race with sexual orientation.

D) Funny how you never mention Heller, Citizens United, Bush v Gore, or any other pro-right wing decision in your quest to reign in the judiciary.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

alfablue said:
Is it not correct for the Court to make sure that laws are equally applied to all citizens?

So if any legislature- city, state, federal, passes a law that does not allow for equal treatment under the law- it's the Courts responsibility to say that or not. It may appear that they are legislating from the bench, but in fact it's fixing bad legislation.
Click to expand...

Not when you dont like the law...the Supreme Court should only make laws you yourself agree with. Everyone else can bugger off!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

No...it is doing its job.
 
BassAle said:
w.t.f. is wrong with you?
Click to expand...

Helicopter parents do not permit their kids to make mistakes. They write their term papers, do their science projects, write the college essays. In short Junior or Precious is protected in a bubble.

Right now our SCOTUS does not permit the legislature to write a bad or vague law. If nobody understands it, or the law has more faults in it than California, the court will rewrite the law from the bench to fit "intent", instead of sending it back to the legislature with a big "F" on it with the admonishment to do better.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top