|
On June 27 2013 05:15 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt wrote:On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:"The error in both springs from the same diseased root: an exalted notion of the role of this Court in American democratic society," he said.
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue. Their reasoning there was really cool actually. They ruled that private parties couldn't defend the enforcement of a law in court if they had no legal stake in the law. I imagine that the dissenters just straight up wanted to throw out prop 8 (I haven't read their opinions though) and didn't want to do something as subtle as the majority.
The dissent on the Prop 8 ruling was written by Kennedy, the guy who wrote the majority opinion on the DOMA ruling. His reasoning was that political power comes from the people so propositions should be honored and protected. Of course, he also ruled on the DOMA case that it violated the equal protection clause.
|
On June 27 2013 05:41 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:15 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt wrote:On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:
[quote]
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 27 2013 03:17 PCloadletter wrote:
[quote]
Wait, a supreme court justice said this? Someone in government who wants to limit his own power instead of perpetually increase it? That's really impressive. It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue. Their reasoning there was really cool actually. They ruled that private parties couldn't defend the enforcement of a law in court if they had no legal stake in the law. I imagine that the dissenters just straight up wanted to throw out prop 8 (I haven't read their opinions though) and didn't want to do something as subtle as the majority. The dissent on the Prop 8 ruling was written by Kennedy, the guy who wrote the majority opinion on the DOMA ruling. His reasoning was that political power comes from the people so propositions should be honored and protected. Of course, he also ruled on the DOMA case that it violated the equal protection clause.
Basically saying, "I should be able to hear that case, so I can deny it for different reasons."
|
It was incredibly fucking stupid of you to post the opinions of a bunch of idiotic celebrities and other irrelevant fucks.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore.
|
Pretty sad it was such a close vote. Still lots of opposition being portrayed in the media, so that's also a negative.
|
On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore.
I feel like the lack of standing was just a method to try and dodge the political issue of it.
No one wanted to defend it so what the hell did they expect was going to happen? Clearly many people think it's an unconstitutional law and they should have just addressed it as such, as the majority did.
|
On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore.
And isn't it exactly the job of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions when they arise? Like that's literally the only thing it does.
|
On June 27 2013 05:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:41 andrewlt wrote:On June 27 2013 05:15 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:03 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:02 andrewlt wrote:On June 27 2013 03:50 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:43 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:39 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 03:32 arie3000 wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. 10 points for you. On June 27 2013 02:16 darthfoley wrote:
Good job Supreme Court! Which 5 voted against which 4? Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan wrote/joined the majority opinion, Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas wrote dissents (3 dissents with various joins). The full quote from the Scalia dissent (it is actually his abstract at the beginning) is: "This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today’s opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted leg- islation. The Court’s errors on both points spring forth from the same diseased root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America." Scalia has a long history of not touching social issues, and leaving stuff to the states or government. Apparently the voting rights of minorities in the South do not warrant a similar gradation of judicial restraint, unfortunately. Links to the opinions themselves (the DOMA case is fairly readable, and the Scalia dissent is fun) DOMA: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_g2bh.pdfProp 8: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-144_8ok0.pdf Scalia believes that social issues should be avoided by the federal goverment. Although his writings are generally harsh, he is very pragmatic about change in the country. When asked if the people wanted a social change that he didn't agree with, he said they should elect a president that would appoint a judge would would vote for that change. He is not against change or government involvement with social issues, but he won't be the one to initiate it. On June 27 2013 03:32 Tibbroar wrote:On June 27 2013 03:22 TheTenthDoc wrote:
[quote]
It would be if Scalia didn't have a nasty tendency to do the exact opposite. Hey now, be fair, he wants to limit power when he doesn't benefit from it. He's seriously the lowest form of scum, and thinks he's ten times smarter than he actually is. That isn't true. He wrote that knowing the outcome and wanted to point out the dangers of the government delving into social issues. There is no way to know how he personally feels about the law or change. That's awful convenient for him. Instead of like...doing his job he gets to tow the party line. Supreme Judges are generally not political by nature, look at the recent health care rulings. Scalia is very strict when it comes to his views on the constitution and what the federal government is allowed to do. He isn't averse to social change, but he doesn't see it as his job to be that change. Other Judges can do that. Remember that once the vote goes 5, the other four judges may decide to oppose it simply to be devils advocate and point out the pitfalls in further rulings. 5-4 votes are not as conflicted as people make them out to be. The Prop 8 ruling has a more interesting divide. It's Roberts joined by Scalia and 3 liberals. The dissent was Sotomayer and the other 3 conservatives. I am going to have to read that. That is super interesting that Scalia opposed the ruling on DOMA, but ruled that Prop 8 was a non-issue. Their reasoning there was really cool actually. They ruled that private parties couldn't defend the enforcement of a law in court if they had no legal stake in the law. I imagine that the dissenters just straight up wanted to throw out prop 8 (I haven't read their opinions though) and didn't want to do something as subtle as the majority. The dissent on the Prop 8 ruling was written by Kennedy, the guy who wrote the majority opinion on the DOMA ruling. His reasoning was that political power comes from the people so propositions should be honored and protected. Of course, he also ruled on the DOMA case that it violated the equal protection clause. Basically saying, "I should be able to hear that case, so I can deny it for different reasons."
It took me a little bit to get what you're saying. Yeah, that sounds about right since the majority opinion was basically to punt the issue back to the lower courts. I guess he wanted to do an actual ruling on the case. It was pretty interesting who he got on his side and who Roberts got on the other side, though.
|
On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore.
Bush v Gore was always going to end the way it did. The SCOTUS is never gong to decide or overturn an election. Ever. Even if it is flawed and broken, you are stuck with the election that you ran. The SCOTUS will never people sue because they don't like the outcome of the presidential election. That is a true slippery slope and they will never go near it.
|
On June 27 2013 05:44 Mansef wrote:
It was incredibly fucking stupid of you to post the opinions of a bunch of idiotic celebrities and other irrelevant fucks.
why so harsh? He was just trying to include some background info and stuff.
|
On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore.
Its funny because his description of the courts is exactly what I thought they were supposed to be  . The lack of political incentive (job is for life) combined with their jurisdiction being tied to the desires of the people (writ of certiorari) means that the court is a really good institution to be a check on the legislative and executive branches.
|
Mike Huckabee is such a tool.
|
On June 27 2013 05:55 Vindicare605 wrote:
Mike Huckabee is such a tool.
yeah reading his tweet is kind of wtf. Of course the court thought they were above the votes, thats what they are there for...
|
This is a great step for progress in America!
On a related note, i really wish the strive for equality would have us question the idea of patriachy itself instead of these all inclusive deals. As a person who disagrees strongly on the idea of religious marrige, and that of state-marrige, i never understood why the LGBT community even wants to be a part of the club to begin with (talking mostly religious marrige). I mean in Denmark SSM has been legal for a while, but only if you get married at the mayors office and not in church, now we are fighting for the right for LGBT's to marry in church, and im like, why would you want that? To basically be in a club with people who on a organizational level think you are something immoral? I just dont get it, we should instead fight for the abolishment of marrige in the traditional sense, and instead make all spousal relations include the exact same rights as everyone else, regardless of sexual/social/racial/religous/legal standing, but i guess that wont be before i die hehe.
|
On June 27 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. And isn't it exactly the job of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions when they arise? Like that's literally the only thing it does.
That is the endless debate that people have about the Supreme Court: Is it an agent for change? People debate it until the end of time and use phrased like "activist judges" and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to the argument. In general, from working the the legal field, activist judges are bad and generally cause more harm than good.
But Scalia is correct that they do not have supremacy over what is constitutional and what isn't. It is a terrible tool for change, since they are limited by their rulings and can only address issues that are brought before them. He would argue that it is the Representatives in Congress and the Executive branch's job to address these issues across the board, rather than bring each one up before the court for them to decide on its own merits.
You are going to see a lot more like these, where the Court tell says to Congress "Yo, you guys should be handling this shit, not us."
|
On June 27 2013 05:58 TWIX_Heaven wrote:
This is a great step for progress in America!
On a related note, i really wish the strive for equality would have us question the idea of patriachy itself instead of these all inclusive deals. As a person who disagrees strongly on the idea of religious marrige, and that of state-marrige, i never understood why the LGBT community even wants to be a part of the club to begin with (talking mostly religious marrige). I mean in Denmark SSM has been legal for a while, but only if you get married at the mayors office and not in church, now we are fighting for the right for LGBT's to marry in church, and im like, why would you want that? To basically be in a club with people who on a organizational level think you are something immoral? I just dont get it, we should instead fight for the abolishment of marrige in the traditional sense, and instead make all spousal relations include the exact same rights as everyone else, regardless of sexual/social/racial/religous/legal standing, but i guess that wont be before i die hehe.
religion =/= patriarchy. I know that in general the church has not been incredibly progressive on the issue of womens rights, but that doesn't mean that all religious people are misogynists. A lot of couples bothgay and straight want to have their marriage recognized by god and the avenue that they deem best to do that is through the church. Also I'm not sure why getting rid of patriarchy necessitates the destruction of marriage as a whole, its just a 2 person commit to love and live with each other.
Also this decision has nothing to do with churches recognizing SSM (many of them still won't in the US). It only has to do with how the state defines marriage.
|
On June 27 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. And isn't it exactly the job of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions when they arise? Like that's literally the only thing it does. That is the endless debate that people have about the Supreme Court: Is it an agent for change? People debate it until the end of time and use phrased like "activist judges" and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to the argument. In general, from working the the legal field, activist judges are bad and generally cause more harm than good. But Scalia is correct that they do not have supremacy over what is constitutional and what isn't. It is a terrible tool for change, since they are limited by their rulings and can only address issues that are brought before them. He would argue that it is the Representatives in Congress and the Executive branch's job to address these issues across the board, rather than bring each one up before the court for them to decide on its own merits. You are going to see a lot more like these, where the Court tell says to Congress "Yo, you guys should be handling this shit, not us."
Well that would be ok if our congress was handling ANYTHING at the moment....
12% approval rate, 90% incumbency, how the fuck does that even happen? /sigh
|
United States22883 Posts
On June 27 2013 05:52 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. Bush v Gore was always going to end the way it did. The SCOTUS is never gong to decide or overturn an election. Ever. Even if it is flawed and broken, you are stuck with the election that you ran. The SCOTUS will never people sue because they don't like the outcome of the presidential election. That is a true slippery slope and they will never go near it.
What about the VRA yesterday? They literally said the reason is because social conditions have changed. If you claim to be against activism, you can't strike down a law for that reason. It's for Congress to decide.
|
On June 27 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. And isn't it exactly the job of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions when they arise? Like that's literally the only thing it does. That is the endless debate that people have about the Supreme Court: Is it an agent for change? People debate it until the end of time and use phrased like "activist judges" and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to the argument. In general, from working the the legal field, activist judges are bad and generally cause more harm than good. But Scalia is correct that they do not have supremacy over what is constitutional and what isn't. It is a terrible tool for change, since they are limited by their rulings and can only address issues that are brought before them. He would argue that it is the Representatives in Congress and the Executive branch's job to address these issues across the board, rather than bring each one up before the court for them to decide on its own merits. You are going to see a lot more like these, where the Court tell says to Congress "Yo, you guys should be handling this shit, not us."
The thing is, in the modern era of politics the court is an excellent agent of change because of the way that is it insulated from regular politics. Without constituents or interests to keep happy they are fee to rule whatever way they fell best without having to worry about their job come november. Also most of this is like middle school civics, but I've always seen that the role of the court was to take on and decide constitutional questions. I definitely wouldn't want that sort of authority going to congress.
|
On June 27 2013 06:02 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:59 Plansix wrote:On June 27 2013 05:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 05:45 On_Slaught wrote:
The dissents on the DOMA case were all based upon the SCOTUS not having jurisdiction to rule. This line especially, from Scalia sums it up well:
"That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive. It envisions a Supreme Court standing (or rather enthroned) at the apex of government, empowered to decide all constitutional questions, always and every- where “primary” in its role."
To me this screams of hypocrisy and cherry picking times to apply such an attitude. He essentially took the opposite view in Bush v Gore. And isn't it exactly the job of the Supreme Court to decide constitutional questions when they arise? Like that's literally the only thing it does. That is the endless debate that people have about the Supreme Court: Is it an agent for change? People debate it until the end of time and use phrased like "activist judges" and so on. There are good sides and bad sides to the argument. In general, from working the the legal field, activist judges are bad and generally cause more harm than good. But Scalia is correct that they do not have supremacy over what is constitutional and what isn't. It is a terrible tool for change, since they are limited by their rulings and can only address issues that are brought before them. He would argue that it is the Representatives in Congress and the Executive branch's job to address these issues across the board, rather than bring each one up before the court for them to decide on its own merits. You are going to see a lot more like these, where the Court tell says to Congress "Yo, you guys should be handling this shit, not us." 12% approval rate, 90% incumbency, how the fuck does that even happen? /sigh
Because everyone hates congress in general and thinks that they are a bunch of skanks who spend too much and argue over silly things, but when OUR congressperson holds up an important bill over a bunch of new spending for OUR district, we love it and reelect him or her.
But thats more for the USPMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
