The Supreme Court is the elite’s branch: five unelected lawyers making laws for 312 million. Here, two of the people’s representatives protest:
because I’m exhausted hearing how a 5-4 SCOTUS decision ruling ObamaCare unconstitutional is somehow an elitist coup, but 5-4 upholding is a-ok.
So it gets overturned. BFD. Work legislatively on new reform. As the founders intended.
3 of four parts of Arizona Immigration law thrown out… bad/good court? SCOTUS throws out Life without parole for juveniles convicted of heinous murders… good court. Some people’s vision of the court is slightly tainted depending on their pet issues.
Hey, politically, I wish all 4 of pieces the contested AZ law challenged were upheld, but, all in all, I think the decisions rendered were reasoned and had a basis in interpretation of the constitutional issues.
But I don’t try to de-legitimize the SCOTUS because I disagreed with their decisions. AZ, work around it., Find other legislative solutions to your problems.
Same with the ACA…5-4 or 4-5 doesn’t make the court evil. The solution will and should be legislative. The ACA wasn’t exactly bi-partisan. Nor is it politically popular. This will make its fate legislative and not judicial.
The unelected members of the Supreme Court shouldn’t be invalidating legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people, period. That idea wasn’t intended by the founders, which is why it isn’t in the constitution. A Council of Revision was proposed in Philadelphia, which would have given the justices this power, but it was sensibly rejected. When you find the place in the constitution that gives the Supreme Court the authority to defeat legislation, you let me know.
When SCOTUS finds a law (or Legislation) to be unconstitutional, isn’t that their job? We had Legislation which said we could sentence a juvenile to life in prison without parole and SCOTUS just deemed it unconstitutional… is that a case of “The unelected members of the Supreme Court shouldn’t be invalidating legislation passed by the elected representatives of the people, period.”?
I’m siding with johnd on this one. The Council of Revision cited by Bob was intended to be a routine part of the legislative process. SCOTUS, on the other hand only takes a case if it has worked its way through appeal (SCOTUS has very limited original jurisdiction.) and satisfies the case and controversy requirements. In fact, the Court restrains itself quite a bit in deciding what they should hear based on the nature of the question and technical issues such as standing, etc. I am fully in agreement with Chief Justice Marshall’s quote that, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” As the Constitution is the supreme law they are oath bound to consider that above ordinary statute. Granted legislators and executives swear to uphold it too, but they are not experts and politics sometimes proves too tempting, though I do think that laws should have the presumption of constitutionality with the burden of proof falling on the party claiming otherwise. Not that there are never bad decisions; both sides can name some that seem that way to them. On balance, though I think it contributes to the stability of our system to have a Court willing and able to call the balls and strikes.
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Wed 22 May 1:12 PM
RSS - Latest Posts
RSS - Latest Comments
ADVERTISE ON THE BLUE MASS GROUP NETWORK | WORDPRESS HOSTING & WEB DESIGN BY PONTICLARO