3 ms·

They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in

They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary We got James Madison’s version of government, who described the Senate as a legislative body to protect the rich minority from the poor majority. Thus the justice system evolved over time only assessing laws and building its existence on questions of property rights and ownership. Not saying it’s scandalous or wrong but it’s only concerned with internal consistency, like India. Look at how the GOP is largely pushing a platform that’s hundreds of years old, with an outcome that resembles the way things were before the New Deal It’s just old guys advocating for their personal feelings. Exactly what the person from India said :shrug:

da_chicken 8y ago
>They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system > They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases > Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  In a professional capacity they are. As individuals they are not, but even still they toe the line. While we revere the Founders for being outspoken of the status quo. Contemporary leadership relies on it. And note where I said it’s hardly scandalous. I was really just contrasting it with another posters view of their culture. American culture relies on hewing to what leadership finds emotionally true. Nice of y’all to white knight for SCOTUS though. And get all technical with me, as if you’re educating a moron you don’t even know. Like I said this forum just plays to its emotional biases like the others.
- KorematsuFred 8y ago
  We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings). SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  SCOTUS can't create new legislation. But in a common law system like the US, where court decisions are part of the legal framework, simply issuing a court ruling can result in the creation of new "law."
kortilla 8y ago
>Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary And that’s exactly what we got. I urge you to look into what the legislative branch does and look into constitutional amendments. The system changes all of the time. Based on your description of the GOP, you sound upset that the country isn’t more socialist. That’s hardly related to the representatives having the ability to change laws.
- keko039ndnfm 8y ago
  Thank you for assuming I’m ignorant of the process. “That’s exactly what we got.” Then why do the laws not reflect the wishes of the public? Majority opinion is to legalize all kinds of things legislators refuse to legalize that are harmless (same sex marriage [oops SCOTUS did that for em], marijuana, Medicare for all) How is that any less like the comment that claimed India was full of old men proselytizing about morality? How has it really changed from the view on Main Street? The headlines are the same now as they were when I was a kid in the late-70s and 80s? Chomsky: ‘I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.’
- kortilla 8y ago
  Reply to sibling since it’s dead: >Then why do the laws not reflect the wishes of the public? This isn’t a direct democracy. The law reflects the super majority of the representatives/senators or the majority of the representatives/senators and the president. The entire purpose of that is to prevent small majorities from steamrolling in laws. 60% for legalization or whatever topic you want isn’t enough to make a federal law changes if the majority isn’t spread around all of the states as well. Obama didn’t even want gay marriage when he went into office. People elected him again anyway. I think most of your confusion comes from the fact that you don’t understand representative democracies.
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    On top of that is the partisan system in congress. Even legislation which could garner a majority of the senate will not be given a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the party in power. And then even on top of that, the majority leader won't allow a vote unless he thinks the president will support it. So there are multiple levels something has to go through before it can even get a vote.

da_chicken 8y ago

>They question the correctness of decisions made by the US judiciary system from inside the system > They decide if the inside of the box is working correctly in an undemocratic fashion, based upon their biases > Not the correctness of the US judiciary system itself It's literally their job to do work within the system. The SCotUS is explicitly restricted to interpreting the laws that already exist and were passed by existing legislatures. If you want massive, sweeping changes in the structure and nature of a law, you need to go to the legislature or otherwise pick up rifle and start a revolution. It is not the job of SCotUS to create new law. That's why they get so much flack for "legislating from the bench" when they make sweeping decisions. They're not supposed to do that, and they typically only do when making rulings surrounding the Constitution itself and it's Amendments.

keko039ndnfm 8y ago
In a professional capacity they are. As individuals they are not, but even still they toe the line. While we revere the Founders for being outspoken of the status quo. Contemporary leadership relies on it. And note where I said it’s hardly scandalous. I was really just contrasting it with another posters view of their culture. American culture relies on hewing to what leadership finds emotionally true. Nice of y’all to white knight for SCOTUS though. And get all technical with me, as if you’re educating a moron you don’t even know. Like I said this forum just plays to its emotional biases like the others.
KorematsuFred 8y ago
We must also remember that once we accept the position that SCOTUS can create new law, it can go both ways and not sure your way. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams both give examples of poker. Imagine a standard Poker game where everyone knows the rule, some win some lose and yet there are no fights. Change the Poker game rules such that the dealer can change the rules at his whim and we will have fights (even though the dealer might not actually affect anyone's earnings). SCOTUS not going out of their way is good for society.
gamblor956 8y ago
SCOTUS can't create new legislation. But in a common law system like the US, where court decisions are part of the legal framework, simply issuing a court ruling can result in the creation of new "law."

kortilla 8y ago

>Thomas Jefferson advocated for a system that would allow future generations to reasses it’s Constitution and laws, and adjust as necessary And that’s exactly what we got. I urge you to look into what the legislative branch does and look into constitutional amendments. The system changes all of the time. Based on your description of the GOP, you sound upset that the country isn’t more socialist. That’s hardly related to the representatives having the ability to change laws.

keko039ndnfm 8y ago
Thank you for assuming I’m ignorant of the process. “That’s exactly what we got.” Then why do the laws not reflect the wishes of the public? Majority opinion is to legalize all kinds of things legislators refuse to legalize that are harmless (same sex marriage [oops SCOTUS did that for em], marijuana, Medicare for all) How is that any less like the comment that claimed India was full of old men proselytizing about morality? How has it really changed from the view on Main Street? The headlines are the same now as they were when I was a kid in the late-70s and 80s? Chomsky: ‘I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.’
kortilla 8y ago
Reply to sibling since it’s dead: >Then why do the laws not reflect the wishes of the public? This isn’t a direct democracy. The law reflects the super majority of the representatives/senators or the majority of the representatives/senators and the president. The entire purpose of that is to prevent small majorities from steamrolling in laws. 60% for legalization or whatever topic you want isn’t enough to make a federal law changes if the majority isn’t spread around all of the states as well. Obama didn’t even want gay marriage when he went into office. People elected him again anyway. I think most of your confusion comes from the fact that you don’t understand representative democracies.
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  On top of that is the partisan system in congress. Even legislation which could garner a majority of the senate will not be given a vote unless it has the support of a majority of the party in power. And then even on top of that, the majority leader won't allow a vote unless he thinks the president will support it. So there are multiple levels something has to go through before it can even get a vote.