Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 18, 2020.

  1. RetiredGySgt
    Online

    RetiredGySgt Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,821
    Thanks Received:
    7,890
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Ratings:
    +16,645
    The Supreme Court does not claim it has Universal mandate. It has jurisdiction over all FEDERAL cases. ALL of them and the 11th has nothing to do with Federal cases. State cases are still State matters unless the case impinges on Federal authority or laws.
     
  2. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,269
    Thanks Received:
    25,131
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,290
    Wrong.

    There is no issue that the Supreme Court simply denies that they can cover, no subject that they won't consider under their purview, no case they would admit should be a local issue, and up to state courts.



    A pity that I can't get you to understand the promise of federalism, and it's role in getting the Constitution ratified.

    Today's Supreme Court is the antithesis of federalism.



    Now.....why can't you answer this question?


    I bet you can't figure out why the rest of the Federal government doesn't simply slap the Court's hand.
    Why have the executive and legislative branches not pushed back on the theft of power by the judiciary?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2020
  3. Kilroy2
    Offline

    Kilroy2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,525
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +711

    all you do is quote the constitution

    then you apply a meaning

    quote "That there was a mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts yada yada" is your meaning and why you are wrong

    That above is the issues you are stating that its a mistake

    just because its is something that is not mention

    yet I quote why

    it says "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

    by your logic it is clear the constitution in mentioning men are create equal and does not mention woman who by your logic are not equal

    Thus we also know that there was slavery in the US

    So when the Constitution say all men are equal yet men are also slaves

    Also since woman are NOT created as there is no mention of them using your logic they are not equal thus any argument you submit is incorrect because by the constitution you are not created equal to men

    If you interpreter that the constitution is correct and nothing can be implied

    How as a woman should we accept anything you says as you your whole point is that the constitution meaning cannot be implied

    relax as a man I will interpret it for you

    It is implied that you are equal to a man

    feel better

    you do not answer the one question that puts a huge hole in your argument

    you just ignore it as you have no answer

    Implied powers is as valid as enumerated powers just because certain actions of any branch is not mention does not mean implied powers is incorrect or a mistake

    THAT IS THE POINT

    if you say its a mistake then you are making a judgement call well where in the constitution does it say that it is a mistake for any branch of government cannot use implied power

    2nd you fail to address why the president and congress have implied powers

    Yet you do not say anything

    address the above

     
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,269
    Thanks Received:
    25,131
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,290


    "....all you do is quote the constitution...."


    Exactly.


    No other statutes, 'implied guesses,' assumptions, prevarications, ec., count.


    3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
    Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



    Any decisions of the Supreme Court not authorized and tied to the specific language of the Constitution should be treated as red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.



     
  5. Kilroy2
    Offline

    Kilroy2 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2018
    Messages:
    1,525
    Thanks Received:
    145
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +711
    Annie

    YET THEY DO JUDICIAL REVIEWS

    The power of judicial review was established in the 1803 Supreme Court case of Marbury v. Madison.



    They have been doing it for 200 plus years

    Thus the purpose is to ensure that the other branches abide by the constitution and they can strike it done if it violates the constitution

    I guess the Supreme Court disagrees with your assessment

    Chief Justice John Marshall: “It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.

    well they are the judicial system, they should know what the law or the constitution means

    Loving v. Virginia (1967): State laws prohibiting interracial marriage were struck down.

    wow good thing for judicial review or laws can be written to stop interracial marriages

    McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819 (7-0 decision)

    Established the federal government's implied powers over the states.

    oh there is that nasty word of implied powers

    Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857 (7-2 decision)

    Denied citizenship to African American slaves.

    oh well do you agree with that one

    Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 (9-0 decision)

    Separating black and white students in public schools is unconstitutional

    Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963 (9-0 decision)

    Criminal defendants have a right to an attorney even if they cannot afford one.
    I guess the government could not deny criminal defendants a lawyer even if they had no money

    United States v. Nixon, 1974 (8-0 decision)

    President cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence from criminal trial.

    my favorite, can you imagine a president withholding evidence using executive privilege as a way to obstruct justice even when the president was lying

    "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

    I still haven't heard your comment on what the constitution means by that statement and what is implied or explicit in that passage

    My happiness depends on your answer
     
  6. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,269
    Thanks Received:
    25,131
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,290

    Who's 'Annie'?
     

Share This Page