6 ms·

Oh dear, USA; you have a real problem with your Supreme Court enacting precedents for things that are clearly not in the interest of a succesful USA. The Supre

Oh dear, USA; you have a real problem with your Supreme Court enacting precedents for things that are clearly not in the interest of a succesful USA. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last-resort, the fail-safe, the watcher of the US legal system. But somehow it has become infected with partisan BS and now we have to wonder Who watches the watchers? How do we get out of this mess?

tssva 2y ago
The Supreme Court’s job isn’t to enact precedents that are in the interest of a successful USA. Their job is to make rulings regarding whether laws are constitutional and interpreting what laws mean when there is a question regarding how a law should be interpreted. Neither the constitution or enacted laws are always in the best interest of the USA. If that is the case it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them. That is the job of the people either directly or through their elected representatives.
- feoren 2y ago
  > If that is the case it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them. The Supreme Court changes laws all the time. Where is the line between "interpreting what laws mean" and "deciding what laws mean", i.e. changing law and making new law? The Supreme Court has been in the business of changing and making new law for a long time; this sitting court is just the worst example of it.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Finding new constitutional rules in “emanations from penumbras” seems extremely over that line…
    - dctoedt 2y ago
      > Finding new constitutional rules in “emanations from penumbras” seems extremely over that line There's a difference between "finding new constitutional rules," on the one hand, versus recognizing the logical implications of existing rules, on the other. Mocking "emanations from penumbras" seems to hint at hostility to the Ninth Amendment's explicit rule that not every right and liberty must be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. For non-lawyer readers, the "emanations" quote is from Griswold v. Connecticut, recognizing a constitutionally-based privacy right to use contraception. The complete quote is: <quote> The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' </quote> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+v+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=122769221450000... at 484 (cleaned up, extra paragraphing added).
      - rayiner 2y ago
        > There's a difference between "finding new constitutional rules," on the one hand, versus recognizing the logical implications of existing rules, on the other. A sweeping right to kill fetuses is not logically implied from a right to be secure against warrantless searches. Many legal systems have the latter protection, but the US is an aberration in interpreting it to create some right to bodily autonomy. > Mocking "emanations from penumbras" seems to hint at hostility to the Ninth Amendment's explicit rule that not every right and liberty must be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is just a savings clause. It cannot support conjuring new rights into existence by spring boarding off enumerated ones. Put differently, the bill of rights isn’t a set of legal principles which can be invoked as the building blocks to divine previously non-existent rights to override democracy. The quoted portion of Griswold is unpersuasive in the extreme. I’d call up and yell at any associate that handed me anything like that. People would be up in arms if the Court used similarly vacuous reasoning to, for example, divine a “right” that was economic or regulatory in nature.
  - anon291 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - feoren 2y ago
      > If you think this, you need to severely re-examine your biases My biases are in favor of processes, systems, and laws that produce outcomes that are long-term beneficial to the country and its people, rather than short-term beneficial for a corrupt few at the expense of everyone else. So in that sense, this court is the worst example in the last hundred years, at least. Yes, according to my biases.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      For increasingly irrational definitions of normal.
    - krapp 2y ago
      RBG believed Roe v. Wade was incorrectly argued, and that the basis for that argument made it easier to attack (which she was correct about in hindsight.) She absolutely believed in abortion as a fundamental right, however, but would have preferred precedent be based on the Equal Protection clause.
      - anon291 2y ago
        > She absolutely believed in abortion as a fundamental right, however, but would have preferred precedent be based on the Equal Protection clause. I have not said anything about her position on abortion; only on Roe v Wade.
        krapp 2y ago
        Her position on abortion in the context of this discussion is directly related to her position on Roe V. Wade. But if you want to be purposely obtuse and pretend that you don't understand that, fair enough.
        anon291 2y ago
- fzeroracer 2y ago
  But increasingly that's what the supreme court has been doing. They are vastly overstepping their authority in multiple regards. More recent examples include their stance on the ability of congress to delegate authority to various agencies (See: the EPA restrictions on carbon emissions). It's very easily for the court to subvert the authority of other branches by forcing them to 'redelegate' or re-litigate previously authorized agencies knowing full well that congress has been in deadlock for partisan reasons.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    What exactly do you think the supreme court’s job even is? You seem to have it exactly backwards. The framers spent enormous amounts of time and ink creating this system of separation of powers. Obviously it’s the job of the Supreme Court to police that. Much more so than finding new “rights” in emanations from penumbras.
    - SauciestGNU 2y ago
      Does the Supreme Court have the power to review congressional acts? Tell me where the Constitution enumerates that power for the Court.
      - rootusrootus 2y ago
        If the Supreme Court continues to get ever more partisan, I wonder if there will ever be a challenge to Marbury v. Madison. Certainly Congress has the power to strip jurisdiction from the court for anything that isn't covered by Article III. They may not have the will, though, given the deep partisan divide and evenly split party representation.
        dctoedt 2y ago
        > Certainly Congress has the power to strip jurisdiction from the court for anything that isn't covered by Article III. You don't need the "for anything ...." part of your sentence: The Exceptions and Regulations Clause is part of Article III and explicitly gives Congress the power to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in pretty much all (federal) cases: <quote> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. [That is, the Supreme Court is the trial court; in those cases, SCOTUS practice is to appoint a "special master" — typically, a former SCOTUS clerk — to hear the case and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law for the Court's consideration.] In all the other Cases before mentioned [i.e., all cases where federal courts have any jurisdiction at all], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. </quote> (Emphasis and extra paragraphing added.) Moreover, because all lower (federal) courts are creatures of Congress from the get-go, there's no reason to think Congress can't limit the jurisdiction of those courts. Congress has repeatedly done this in the past by creating specialty courts, e.g., the Court of Federal Claims and the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (merged into the Federal Circuit in 1982).
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  > it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them by determining whether a law is constitutional or not, they are indeed changing laws
1992spacemovie 2y ago
> The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last-resort, the fail-safe, the watcher of the US legal system. But somehow it has become infected with partisan BS and now we have to wonder Who watches the watchers? How do we get out of this mess? That's a lot of words for "the court doesn't lean my way, so let us act like the entire system has failed". Extremely low quality bait.
- rootusrootus 2y ago
  There is open corruption of sitting supreme court justices and our collective response is to yawn. This is not, or should not be, a partisan issue. Corruption is bad, full stop.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
> But somehow it has become infected with partisan BS and now we have to wonder Who watches the watchers? How do we get out of this mess? It's not partisan BS, it's blatant corruption
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
caboteria 2y ago
[flagged]

tssva 2y ago

The Supreme Court’s job isn’t to enact precedents that are in the interest of a successful USA. Their job is to make rulings regarding whether laws are constitutional and interpreting what laws mean when there is a question regarding how a law should be interpreted. Neither the constitution or enacted laws are always in the best interest of the USA. If that is the case it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them. That is the job of the people either directly or through their elected representatives.

feoren 2y ago
> If that is the case it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them. The Supreme Court changes laws all the time. Where is the line between "interpreting what laws mean" and "deciding what laws mean", i.e. changing law and making new law? The Supreme Court has been in the business of changing and making new law for a long time; this sitting court is just the worst example of it.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Finding new constitutional rules in “emanations from penumbras” seems extremely over that line…
  - dctoedt 2y ago
    > Finding new constitutional rules in “emanations from penumbras” seems extremely over that line There's a difference between "finding new constitutional rules," on the one hand, versus recognizing the logical implications of existing rules, on the other. Mocking "emanations from penumbras" seems to hint at hostility to the Ninth Amendment's explicit rule that not every right and liberty must be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. For non-lawyer readers, the "emanations" quote is from Griswold v. Connecticut, recognizing a constitutionally-based privacy right to use contraception. The complete quote is: <quote> The foregoing cases suggest that specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance. Various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment is one, as we have seen. The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers "in any house" in time of peace without the consent of the owner is another facet of that privacy. The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.' The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.' </quote> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12276922145000050979&q=griswold+v+connecticut&hl=en&as_sdt=4,60 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=122769221450000... at 484 (cleaned up, extra paragraphing added).
    - rayiner 2y ago
      > There's a difference between "finding new constitutional rules," on the one hand, versus recognizing the logical implications of existing rules, on the other. A sweeping right to kill fetuses is not logically implied from a right to be secure against warrantless searches. Many legal systems have the latter protection, but the US is an aberration in interpreting it to create some right to bodily autonomy. > Mocking "emanations from penumbras" seems to hint at hostility to the Ninth Amendment's explicit rule that not every right and liberty must be explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment is just a savings clause. It cannot support conjuring new rights into existence by spring boarding off enumerated ones. Put differently, the bill of rights isn’t a set of legal principles which can be invoked as the building blocks to divine previously non-existent rights to override democracy. The quoted portion of Griswold is unpersuasive in the extreme. I’d call up and yell at any associate that handed me anything like that. People would be up in arms if the Court used similarly vacuous reasoning to, for example, divine a “right” that was economic or regulatory in nature.
- anon291 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - feoren 2y ago
    > If you think this, you need to severely re-examine your biases My biases are in favor of processes, systems, and laws that produce outcomes that are long-term beneficial to the country and its people, rather than short-term beneficial for a corrupt few at the expense of everyone else. So in that sense, this court is the worst example in the last hundred years, at least. Yes, according to my biases.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    For increasingly irrational definitions of normal.
  - krapp 2y ago
    RBG believed Roe v. Wade was incorrectly argued, and that the basis for that argument made it easier to attack (which she was correct about in hindsight.) She absolutely believed in abortion as a fundamental right, however, but would have preferred precedent be based on the Equal Protection clause.
    - anon291 2y ago
      > She absolutely believed in abortion as a fundamental right, however, but would have preferred precedent be based on the Equal Protection clause. I have not said anything about her position on abortion; only on Roe v Wade.
      - krapp 2y ago
        Her position on abortion in the context of this discussion is directly related to her position on Roe V. Wade. But if you want to be purposely obtuse and pretend that you don't understand that, fair enough.
        anon291 2y ago
fzeroracer 2y ago
But increasingly that's what the supreme court has been doing. They are vastly overstepping their authority in multiple regards. More recent examples include their stance on the ability of congress to delegate authority to various agencies (See: the EPA restrictions on carbon emissions). It's very easily for the court to subvert the authority of other branches by forcing them to 'redelegate' or re-litigate previously authorized agencies knowing full well that congress has been in deadlock for partisan reasons.
- rayiner 2y ago
  What exactly do you think the supreme court’s job even is? You seem to have it exactly backwards. The framers spent enormous amounts of time and ink creating this system of separation of powers. Obviously it’s the job of the Supreme Court to police that. Much more so than finding new “rights” in emanations from penumbras.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    Does the Supreme Court have the power to review congressional acts? Tell me where the Constitution enumerates that power for the Court.
    - rootusrootus 2y ago
      If the Supreme Court continues to get ever more partisan, I wonder if there will ever be a challenge to Marbury v. Madison. Certainly Congress has the power to strip jurisdiction from the court for anything that isn't covered by Article III. They may not have the will, though, given the deep partisan divide and evenly split party representation.
      - dctoedt 2y ago
        > Certainly Congress has the power to strip jurisdiction from the court for anything that isn't covered by Article III. You don't need the "for anything ...." part of your sentence: The Exceptions and Regulations Clause is part of Article III and explicitly gives Congress the power to limit the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction in pretty much all (federal) cases: <quote> In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. [That is, the Supreme Court is the trial court; in those cases, SCOTUS practice is to appoint a "special master" — typically, a former SCOTUS clerk — to hear the case and submit findings of fact and conclusions of law for the Court's consideration.] In all the other Cases before mentioned [i.e., all cases where federal courts have any jurisdiction at all], the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. </quote> (Emphasis and extra paragraphing added.) Moreover, because all lower (federal) courts are creatures of Congress from the get-go, there's no reason to think Congress can't limit the jurisdiction of those courts. Congress has repeatedly done this in the past by creating specialty courts, e.g., the Court of Federal Claims and the former Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (merged into the Federal Circuit in 1982).
insane_dreamer 2y ago
> it isn’t the job of the Supreme Court to change them by determining whether a law is constitutional or not, they are indeed changing laws

1992spacemovie 2y ago

> The Supreme Court is supposed to be the last-resort, the fail-safe, the watcher of the US legal system. But somehow it has become infected with partisan BS and now we have to wonder Who watches the watchers? How do we get out of this mess? That's a lot of words for "the court doesn't lean my way, so let us act like the entire system has failed". Extremely low quality bait.

rootusrootus 2y ago
There is open corruption of sitting supreme court justices and our collective response is to yawn. This is not, or should not be, a partisan issue. Corruption is bad, full stop.

red-iron-pine 2y ago

> But somehow it has become infected with partisan BS and now we have to wonder Who watches the watchers? How do we get out of this mess? It's not partisan BS, it's blatant corruption

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

caboteria 2y ago

[flagged]