 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Tearing down walls > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/26/2003 10:39 AM (GMT -6) |   | Given the 2 major recent decisions by the SCOTUS (Affirmative Action and Sodomy) as well as a recent history of "Landmark" decisions (such as Bush vs. Gore), makes me wonder if indeed those 9 people in black robes affect American society more than the 535 members of Congress.
A brief history (and btw, I'm no expert on law). The SCOTUS first of all has taken a record number of cases of this century, even in the past 50 years. And most of these cases have shaped the very way our society thinks, more so than the laws congress makes. Mention titles like "Brown vs. the Board of Education", "Roe vs. Wade", and "Miranda vs. Arizona" and everyone understands the gravity of these decisions. Contrast these to Congressional laws such as the "Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)" (a significant environmental law which established the Superfund targeting toxic site cleanup), the "Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986" (radically reoganized the military), and the “Privacy Act of 1974” (most just know it has something to do with privacy). Ask most people what these laws entailed and they just scratch their heads and go "Huh"?
The main reason that the SCOTUS has had so much limelight is not only because of the power they weild, but in the relative speed their decisions have effects: Almost immediate. A law passed by Congress has to trickle through many layers of beauracy before you and I see any tangible effects. However, a decision to end an Undergraduate "point system" for colleges and preventing porn in libraries will be implemented before next month.
My point is not to say that these cases do not represent important issues, or that the SCOTUS has not made in my opinion a "fair and just" decision, but that their roles is not at all following what the judicial branch was designed to do by the founding fathers. Their job is to "interpret" the laws. Or sometimes explained in layman's terms, "Try to find out the 'Spirit' of what the Constitution says (including amendments) and make a verdict to determine if a 'Letter of the Law' that Congress made follows this."
Here is where we see the value clashing within its members. Some (like Scalia) believe that the interpretation stops at the Constitution itself. Meaning it would be unwise to tread the waters of the "WWFD?" (What Would the Fathers Do?), and let that remain in the power of Congress. This prevents the SCOTUS from becoming essentially a veto power in Legislature. However there are those (like Ginsberg) who feel it's unfair to put that burden on them. They claim that there are specific "fundamental" rights that although are not explicitly mentioned in the Constituion, are consistent with its Spirit (such as privacy or separation of church and state). This also extends to issues unknown back then and argue "If they would have known, this is how they would've decided" such as abortion. (I however believe they did know about abortion and did not mention it simply because it was so reprehensible that it bothered not mentioning).
Because everyone now understands the sheer power of the opinions of 9 people, it's no wonder that confirmation hearings for new Justices (it used to not even go before Congress) have turned into battlefields. These justices have no term limits, there's no appealing to their decisions, and appointees are made by the President. What's even more dangerous is that the Justices know this (which would explain recent extremely long tenures).
Regardless of your viewpoint on the role of the SCOTUS or the decisions made, there's no denying that they are a key player in shaping the conduct of the Federal government, the State government, schools, corporations, lobbyists, famlies, and individuals. People who wish to keep the status quo do everything they can to prevent an appeal to them, and those who wish change will do anything they can for that appeal.
We have set up a three branch government to keep checks and balances on each other and to keep the power evenly divided. Unfortunately, that power is shifting toward those who should not have it.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/27/2003 4:28 AM (GMT -6) | | It's been firmly established that the judiciary alone has the power to interpret the COnstitution (ancient case "marbury v. madison"). I don't see how they've usurped anyone's power. They rightly decide matters of constitutionality of the laws. Whether one agrees with their decision or not is a different issue.
People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.
--Søren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/27/2003 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | ReasonableDoubt,
But that is exactly my point. How does one define "interpret the Constitution"? Since the SCOTUS has the "sole authority" to define what they consider interpreting, if they choose to keep a very loose definition of interpretation to essentially legislate, there are no checks and balances for that possible abuse. Do you see what I'm saying here?
The only remedy would be for Congress to amend the Constitution limiting or redefining that power. However, that may be quite difficult. My argument is that given the nature of SCOTUS (no term limits, no vetos or appeals, etc.) the representated government we have is often representated by only nine, not 535 people.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/27/2003 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | You're right- the balance would be a constitutional amendment, if the Congress does not like the interpretation of the Supreme Court. For 200 or so years, the interpreting has been going on- with varying results. Probably the most activist court was the one under FDR - granting much authority to the federal government that previously had not been there.
I just get tired of "the sky is falling" mantra- the Court's actions are nothing new. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/27/2003 8:23 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I just get tired of "the sky is falling" mantra- the Court's actions are nothing new.
I wonder if the "sky fell" (whatever that's suppose to mean) some 30 or so million abortions after Roe v. Wade?
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/27/2003 9:04 AM (GMT -6) | | When Roe v. Wade was decided, several states had already liberalized their abortion laws. If Roe was overturned, it's very doubtful that individual states would impose strict abortion laws again. The majority of the people don't want them.
The sky is falling just means that people have said after MANY court decisions throughout history that the courts have usurped their power, and yet life goes on. The current Court is actually much less activist now than under FDR - and this is actually considered one of the more conservative Courts ever to sit. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/27/2003 10:50 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
I just get tired of "the sky is falling" mantra- the Court's actions are nothing new.
I get tired of knowing how easily it is for the Supreme Court to do a HECK of a lot more in the name of "judiciary" than decide. No wait, what scares me is that the sky hasn't fallen, but it darned well can at any time (over a period of time) if, as noted by both RD and Laplace, something isn't done to create the necessary check/balance.
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 6/28/2003 5:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
The sky is falling just means that people have said after MANY court decisions throughout history that the courts have usurped their power, and yet life goes on. The current Court is actually much less activist now than under FDR - and this is actually considered one of the more conservative Courts ever to sit.
I still don't see how that answers my question. To me saying,
I just get tired of "the sky is falling" mantra- the Court's actions are nothing new.
is the same thing as saying,
"...and yet life goes on."
You still have not told me what you mean.
Sure enough the Court's actions are nothing new and this particular Court is less active. But the Court, when it has these politically hot issues set before it, almost invariably advances the agenda of modern liberalism and that is hyper individualism. Usually this is confined to the areas of speech and sexuality. Normally, you will not see this in terms of something more physical i.e. reversing a conviction for assault on the ground that one man's battery is another's sparring practice.
Concerning religion? The Court frequently emphasizes the harm to an individual's sensibilities of seeing religious expression with which it disagrees.
In terms of equality, the Court has usually argued that preferences were rememdies for past discrimination. But what has happened is that the person being preferred is NOT the person discriminated in the past.
What judicial radical individualism has done is weaken or destroy the authority of "intermediate institutions," i.e. families, schools, business organizations, private associations, mayors, city councils, etc, where they stand between the individual and the national government and it's bureaucracies. I don't think we are better off for it. I think the Court is constitutionally illigitmate for the most part.
Brandon
Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me.--Isa 49:15-16
| | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:47 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|