quote:Originally posted by glassman: The Court is no more impartial than the other two branches so it's amusing to assume their ruling are.
yawn.... that example is an extreme rarity and not a constitutional powers question...
the issue at hand is whether Bush even understands his rights and responsibilities as the President...
I would add a double yawn, but that would be tacky even for me.
Of course it's not a constitutional powers question, it's not supposed to be. I'm merely showing that the Supreme Court's decisions are neither unbiased nor unchangeable. Today's decisions aren't written in stone no matter how much many would like to believe they are.
Let's take Capital Punishment as another example of your "extreme rarity" cases:
Age for Capital Punishment:
16 was held to be the minimum permissible age in the 1988 Supreme Court of the United States decision of Thompson v. Oklahoma. The Supreme Court, considering the case Roper v. Simmons, in March 2005, found execution of juvenile offenders unconstitutional by a 5–4 margin, effectively raising the minimum permissible age to 18. State laws have not been updated to conform with this decision. Under the US system, unconstitutional laws do not need to be repealed, but are instead held to be unenforceable
Also, the view of the constitutionality of Captial Punishment itself has changed through Court decisions:
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972): Death penalty under current statutes is "abitrary and capricious" and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976): Reinstates the death penalty under a model of guided discretion. See also Jurek v. Texas 428 U.S. 262 (1976) and Proffitt v. Florida 428 U.S. 242 (1976).
Hell, even where and how it can be applied has changed. Specifically, until Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) and Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) a wide array of henious crimes were constitutionally subject to capital punishment. These two decisions limited it to crimes where the victim is killed.
The Court changes and as it does so does what is 'Constitutional'. We'll see if future Courts overturn the decisions that we think are iron clad today (ie Roe v Wade and others mentioned in this thread).
posted
so in other words? you are trying to say that Bush's losses at the Supreme Court are simply because he is out of his "proper" time? LOL... i guess habeus corpus is way past it's prime too?
as for Roe V Wade? don't hold yer breath... Alito and Roberts are less prone to overturn prior precedent than any of their colleagues on the Court.
and if McCain gets elected? he won't be pandering to the ultra right wing after he gets in... they screwed him over plenty already, it'll be payback time
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
so in other words? you are trying to say that Bush's losses at the Supreme Court are simply because he is out of his "proper" time? LOL... i guess habeus corpus is way past it's prime too?
No, I'm saying that the sentiment that gave rise to the policies has changed. After 9/11 the majority of people were in favor of more lenient restrictions being placed on our leaders in the name of more 'safety'. And before you break out Franklin on me...yes, I know. This is the sentiment that carried the vote for the Patriot Act and other policies that started this path to what I'm sure many consider at best an overly protective 'nanny state' or at the worst Fascism.
Let me be clear on this point, I believe the majority of people were so scared by 9/11 that they WANTED Bush's policies in place to make them sleep better at night knowing he was taking care of the 'bad guys' for them.
Now that time has diluted those feelings since we haven't been hit again the same people who wanted those protections are chaffing under them and now want them removed. I think the courts have reflected this change in attitude quite starkly. Look at many of the same cases you held up as 'proof' that Bush acted without constitutional authority. You'll notice that many of the lesser courts upheld his point of view previously (example: the Padilla case's evolution). It's interesting to note that the Supreme Court had the chance to weigh in on the case earlier, but decided to 'dodge' it on technical grounds. Also, as to the cases you listed and others, as far as I've been able to find, NONE of them were unanimous decisions by the Court. That means that at least some of the Court members thought Bush was right. Food for thought.
as for Roe V Wade? don't hold yer breath... Alito and Roberts are less prone to overturn prior precedent than any of their colleagues on the Court.
Don't read anything into my use of that case. I only listed it by name because it is one that is still hotly contested and debated and thus open to revisitation like the capital punishment issues and segregation were. While I'm personally against abortion save in cases of incest, rape, or where the health of the mother is in jepordy, I do feel that it isn't my place to force others to hold that same view.
and if McCain gets elected? he won't be pandering to the ultra right wing after he gets in... they screwed him over plenty already, it'll be payback time
I have no illusions about McCain, Glass. I was for Romney or maybe even Fred Thompson before him. But as I've stated before, I fear what Obama has said he's going to do more than what McCain won't do.
IP: Logged |
posted
Go peddle you crap at a secret meeting of the John Birch Society, because it isn't fit for consideration in a free thinking marketplace of ides.
Your one party first lies and other party line crap isn't simply boring, it is an insult to my Country and a danger to the world.
Pass the koooooooool-aide. You're cut-off.
free thinking marketplace of ideas... since when have you been impartial to free thinking?
posted
After 9/11 the majority of people were in favor of more lenient restrictions being placed on our leaders in the name of more 'safety'. And before you break out Franklin on me...yes, I know. This is the sentiment that carried the vote for the Patriot Act and other policies that started this path to what I'm sure many consider at best an overly protective 'nanny state' or at the worst Fascism.
Let me be clear on this point, I believe the majority of people were so scared by 9/11 that they WANTED Bush's policies in place to make them sleep better at night knowing he was taking care of the 'bad guys' for them.
indeed they did, but the constitution doesn't change without an ammendment, only peoples willingness to ignore the Truth. People did in fact want Fearless Leader to save them, but that doesn't change the Constitution... some of us had a pretty hard time convincing people to grow up... until Katrina hit... then the emperors new clothes were shown to be what they are...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.
IP: Logged |
posted
but have the democrats damaged the Nation via a planned and coordinated effort to destroy the Constitution?
Roe v. Wade
"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man.
Just took rights away from unborn humans, that's all... no bigee.
posted
but the constitution doesn't change without an ammendment
Indeed. But our interpretation of it seems to be at the mercy of public opinion (in abstract) and the political leanings of the Court Justices on the bench(in particular). This is why I mentioned the 'split' decisions. It is interesting (to me at least) that some of the most legally educated minds in our country cannot even agree on what one single piece of paper says.
You mentioned the 2nd Amendment fight...
the Dems tried to re-interpret the constitution too.. the second ammnedmnent in specific... the problem is? when they did it? we stood up to them, not based on party line, but based on our beleifs.
How do you figure? The most recent fight on it to reach the Court was only one vote away from giving Big G the right to take your guns away from you and it was most definately split along conservative\liberal lines.
How can 4 (in this case) Supreme Court Justices read the Constitution and come up with the concept that the people don't have the right to defend their own families?
How can we as a people have confidence in their interpretation of the Law if they can't even agree amonst themselves? And if they can't agree on something this obvious, how can we say that their other decisions (on less clear grounds) are 'Constitutional?'
IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
