4 ms·

There are different philosophies here. I'm mostly with you. I too believe the court should apply the law, not invent the law. On the other hand, there are peopl

There are different philosophies here. I'm mostly with you. I too believe the court should apply the law, not invent the law. On the other hand, there are people who believe the court should just make the "right" decision, take history to the "right" path. However, I do have problem with your statement "without any consideration at all for the social impact". I fear this statement goes to an extreme which would never be hold by any judge in real life. By the way, it's not only the judges and the law make the case, lawyers of both sides are also important in the process.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
> However, I do have problem with your statement "without any consideration at all for the social impact". I fear this statement goes to an extreme which would never be hold by any judge in real life. A lower court judge? Absolutely not. They have huge amounts of discretion in making their judgements. The Supreme Court justice? Absolutely yes. In cases where the Supreme Court is exercising it’s appellate jurisdiction, the only authority it has it to determine constitutionality, and interpret existing legislation. If the legislature passes bad legislation, as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution, then the Supreme Court has no authority to over turn it. This isn’t an extreme position, it’s the constitutionally prescribed role of the Supreme Court.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > In cases where the Supreme Court is exercising it’s appellate jurisdiction, the only authority it has it to determine constitutionality, and interpret existing legislation. Art. III, Sec. 2 directly refutes this narrow view of the appellate role of the Supreme Court.
  - AmericanChopper 7y ago
    Article III grants the Supreme Court judicial power, it does not grant the Supreme Court any legislative power at all. It directly affirms what I said. Nothing I’ve said is even remotely controversial. No Supreme Court justice has ever claimed to have legislative power. It’s honestly quite shocking that people are willing to dispute the most basic concepts in civics.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      > Article III grants the Supreme Court judicial power And, contrary to your description, that power is expressly not a power limiting it only to “determine constitutionality, and interpret existing legislation” whereas trial judges have “huge amounts of discretion in making their judgements” that the Supreme Court lacks (in fact, as the Supreme Court has, but rarely exercises, appellate power over fact decisions as well as law, its domain is broader, in jury trials, than that of the trial judge, who is the original trier of law but not fact.)
      - AmericanChopper 7y ago
        Lower courts have original jurisdiction over nearly all legal actions commenced in the United States. You absolutely do expect trial court judges to exercise a much greater level of discretion than appellate judges, regardless of whether it pertains to matters of law or fact. However, none of that is to distract from the fact that, contrary to your misinterpretation of Article III, judicial powers do not bestow any legislative powers whatsoever.

AmericanChopper 7y ago

> However, I do have problem with your statement "without any consideration at all for the social impact". I fear this statement goes to an extreme which would never be hold by any judge in real life. A lower court judge? Absolutely not. They have huge amounts of discretion in making their judgements. The Supreme Court justice? Absolutely yes. In cases where the Supreme Court is exercising it’s appellate jurisdiction, the only authority it has it to determine constitutionality, and interpret existing legislation. If the legislature passes bad legislation, as long as it doesn’t violate the constitution, then the Supreme Court has no authority to over turn it. This isn’t an extreme position, it’s the constitutionally prescribed role of the Supreme Court.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 7y ago
> In cases where the Supreme Court is exercising it’s appellate jurisdiction, the only authority it has it to determine constitutionality, and interpret existing legislation. Art. III, Sec. 2 directly refutes this narrow view of the appellate role of the Supreme Court.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Article III grants the Supreme Court judicial power, it does not grant the Supreme Court any legislative power at all. It directly affirms what I said. Nothing I’ve said is even remotely controversial. No Supreme Court justice has ever claimed to have legislative power. It’s honestly quite shocking that people are willing to dispute the most basic concepts in civics.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Article III grants the Supreme Court judicial power And, contrary to your description, that power is expressly not a power limiting it only to “determine constitutionality, and interpret existing legislation” whereas trial judges have “huge amounts of discretion in making their judgements” that the Supreme Court lacks (in fact, as the Supreme Court has, but rarely exercises, appellate power over fact decisions as well as law, its domain is broader, in jury trials, than that of the trial judge, who is the original trier of law but not fact.)
    - AmericanChopper 7y ago
      Lower courts have original jurisdiction over nearly all legal actions commenced in the United States. You absolutely do expect trial court judges to exercise a much greater level of discretion than appellate judges, regardless of whether it pertains to matters of law or fact. However, none of that is to distract from the fact that, contrary to your misinterpretation of Article III, judicial powers do not bestow any legislative powers whatsoever.