[Tuttyd]

when wasn't it always so ? 'Brown v Board of Ed ' reversed a horrible SCOTUS decision that became the legitimate law of the land for almost 60 years .
SCOTUS had previously decided that "separate but equal" was constitutional in Plessy Then, without any change in the constitution, they decided that it was unconstitutional.

How is something both constitutional and unconstitutional under the same constitution? Nothing changed ;both cases were identical . And yet 60 years later ;different justices being influenced by the politics of their times came up with completely different results .

So what happens in the future when another set of judges decides that " separate but equal" is cool again ? Won't matter too much how many progressive laws are in place then . It will be the decision of a very slim majority of justices that will make that decision .

Tom, not happy with my previous explanations for this? You know 20-20 hindsight and that type of thing. Explanation that have been canvassed in the long and short term.

[tomder55]

The point is that they are no less fallible than anyone else in the elected branch. The theory that they are some kind of anointed institution that is above the weaknesses of man and above the politics of the day has been proven over and over again to be a fantasy .
I've read the constitution ,and the Federalist Papers ,and the writings of the founders on the constitution many times and have yet to find anything to suggest that SCOTUS has anything near the power they seized. Instead ,the founders were very suspicious of an unelected body or person who had the final decision on what the law will be... I think it was called Monarchy back then.
So if we demonstrate that over and over again that SCOTUS is no better than the elected branches of government ;then that alone should consign them to nothing more than the co-equal branch they were designed to be. Article 3 Sec 2 grants them the power to rule on cases invoving the laws of the land . It does NOT give them the authority to decide which of those laws are constitutional.

[Tuttyd]

The point is that they are no less fallible than anyone else in the elected branch. The theory that they are some kind of annointed institution that is above the weaknesses of man and above the politics of the day has been proven over and over again to be a fantasy .
I've read the constitution ,and the Federalist Papers ,and the writings of the founders on the constitution many times and have yet to find anything to suggest that SCOTUS has anything near the power they seized. Instead ,the founders were very suspicious of an unelected body or person who had the final decision on what the law will be ... I think it was called Monarchy back then.
So if we demonstrate that over and over again that SCOTUS is no better than the elected branches of government ;then that alone should consign them to nothing more than the co-equal branch they were designed to be. Article 3 Sec 2 grants them the power to rule on cases invoving the laws of the land . It does NOT give them the authority to decide which of those laws are constitutional.

Tom, as far as I am concerned you are wasting your time. You are preaching to the converted.

I was attempting to answer the question as to how something can be constitutional and one time and unconstitutional at another.

[tomder55]

Tom, as far as I am concerned you are wasting your time. You are preaching to the converted.

I was attempting to answer the question as to how something can be constitutional and one time and unconstitutional at another.

Well that was a rhetorical question anyway. The answer is it either is or isn't .

[Tuttyd]

well that was a rhetorical question anyway. The answer is it either is or isn't .

No it wasn't. I asked the question in a historical context. In one time but not another.

Nothing rhetorical about that.

[tomder55]

I don't care what times it is... The 14th amendment has not changed since it's passage in 1868 . SCOTUS in 1896 said 'separate but equal ' was constitutional and in 1954 said it wasn't . So either SCOTUS must've made the wrong call in 1896 ;and that in turn delayed 'civil rights ' by almost 60 years... or as Jefferson said ,the constitution is 'mere wax in the hands of the judiciary'. If that is so ,then the consitutition is nothing more than toilet paper that SCOTUS has to supreme authority to wipe their a$$ with .

[Tuttyd]

I dont care what times it is ..... The 14th amendment has not changed since it's passage in 1868 . SCOTUS in 1896 said 'separate but equal ' was constitutional and in 1954 said it wasn't . So either SCOTUS must've made the wrong call in 1896 ;and that in turn delayed 'civil rights ' by almost 60 years .... or as Jefferson said ,the constitution is 'mere wax in the hands of the judiciary'. If that is so ,then the consitutition is nothing more than toilet paper that SCOTUS has to supreme authority to wipe their a$$ with .

You keep asking the same question over and over again. The reason is because you are not prepared to take anything on board that might challenge your... well you know.

[tomder55]

I don't believe I asked any question in my last comment. I made a statement based on my observations. I'll say it another way. What I see is a court where the justices see the court as their chance to impose their personal version of utopia on everyone, regardless of the Constitution. Unfortunately, utopia is a subjective condition that changes over time.

[Tuttyd]

I don't believe I asked any question in my last comment. I made a statement based on my observations. I'll say it another way. What I see is a court where the justices see the court as their chance to impose their personal version of utopia on everyone, regardless of the Constitution. Unfortunately, utopia is a subjective condition that changes over time.

You're right, not this time. But "black robed oligarchs" is a common theme.

Is it too hard to acknowledge that both political wings of SCOTUS are actually doing this?

[NeedKarma]

Yes it is... when you have a fanatic's blinders on.

[tomder55]

You're right, not this time. But "black robed oligarchs" is a common theme.

Is it too hard to acknowledge that both political wings of SCOTUS are actually doing this?

Guess you didn't read comment #83

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Big week for SCOTUS

Geeze it really gets boring when the fall back answer is "well both sides do it "

[Tuttyd]

guess you didn't read comment #83

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Big week for SCOTUS

Geeze it really gets boring when the fall back answer is "well both sides do it "

No, I missed it.Sorry if you find this approach boring. I just get the feeling that you might tell me that the proper role of SCOTUS is to be apolitical.

[tomder55]

Nope I've been saying the proper role of SCOTUS is to be the final Appellate court and not a court that has the power to negate the laws passed by Congress.

[talaniman]

The bad ones should be negated.

[tomder55]

The constitutional way to do that is for the people to vote in Reps to reverse the laws or for the people to amend the constitution . SCOTUS doing that gives them too much power .

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

SCOTUS doing that gives them too much power .

It does.

But, WITHOUT their power, the states have the power to VIOLATE the Constitution willy nilly. We might as well NOT have a Constitution if it means NOTHING.

Excon

[tomder55]

Then amend the constitution so they can constitutionally wield the power they seized.

[talaniman]

then amend the constitution so they can constitutionally wield the power they seized.

Go for it. :D

[tomder55]

Not me . I don't like the status quo . I think Congress should exercise their constitutionally delegated authority to make law ;and the court should stick to their role as defined in Article 3

[excon]

then amend the constitution so they can constitutionally wield the power they seized.

Hello again, tom:

Since I'm happy with the status quo, and it's you who wants CHANGE, it would seem incumbent on YOU to propose an amendment..

Excon