1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Does the supreme court seem unamerican?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Air Langhi, Apr 9, 2010.

  1. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,617
    Likes Received:
    6,244
    You have to work hard and kiss a lot of ass to get there,but once there you can just relax.

    At the end of day their ruling are their opinions of the constitution. The fact the constitution can be interpreted a million different ways means their opinions are as valid as any other person. They can write eloquent opinions, but that still doesn't make it more valid then anyone else.

    Obviously there needs to be checks and balance with the president and congress, but often times it is a political position and the number of republicans and democrats is determined by luck.

    Why not just have 9 random people serve 2 or 3 year terms. They don't need to be lawyers just 9 random people.
     
  2. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,155
    Likes Received:
    14,304
    Is this your way of throwing your hat into the ring for the new vacancy?

    Um, even though I believe Clarence Thomas is an idiot, I still believe his legal opinion would be more valid than the average Joe.
     
  3. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    494
    The SC is part of the definition of "American." It is in the Constitution, which is the basis for our system of government, thus American by definition.
     
  4. JuanValdez

    JuanValdez Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 1999
    Messages:
    34,061
    Likes Received:
    13,410
    I think their opinions on the Constitution are a lot more valid than most people's. They have a lot of education and experience in the law, Constitutional law, and with precedent. Moreover, I don't think there are a million ways to interpret the Constitution. A BS interpretation with terrible logic isn't legitimate. There are probably a couple of legitimate ways to understand various parts of the Constitution, and not more. I shudder to think what 9 random people would do to the concept of the rule of law. Nine people thinking they can do as they please with justice and that they can make the Constitution say what they want it to say is a nightmare to justice and governance.
     
  5. justtxyank

    justtxyank Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    42,653
    Likes Received:
    39,216
    Joke thread produced laughs.

    Success!


    In all seriousness, of course their opinions are more valid than average citizens. They spend a lifetime in the law. Even when I don't agree with them or like their political viewpoints, I cannot deny that they know more law than I ever will. Even ones that people don't like deserve a lot of respect.
     
  6. SamFisher

    SamFisher Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    58,732
    Likes Received:
    36,182
    I think the principle of judicial review can definitely be argued to be unconstitutional - I mean we accept it since Marbury, etc, but you know, if you really are a hardcore textualist/originalist - read Article III - there's simply not a whole lot there to go by.

    I'm not saying it should be unconstitutional, mind you, I'm saying that there's a valid argument there though. I think that inherent contradiction of judges, who are not explicitly authorized to do their thing, demanding that other branhces be explicitly authorized is why originalist etc wasn't thought of as serious legal argument for most of the 20th century.
     
  7. uolj

    uolj Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    60
    I think there's a lot more technical stuff they have to know/understand/decide on than what we see in headlines of their major decisions. It's not like they just make the more conservative decision if they're in the conservative block and the more liberal position if they're in the more liberal block (and flip a coin if it's O'Connor or Kennedy). The vast majority (if not all) of their decisions are based on precedent and the letter of the law. A layperson would not be nearly as skilled at analyzing those things in the way the Constitution is set up for the Supreme Court to do.
     
  8. SirCharlesFan

    SirCharlesFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 1999
    Messages:
    6,028
    Likes Received:
    143
    As someone that's about to finish law school, I shudder to think what would happen if we put random people on the SCOTUS. I've been a poor law student and don't plan on being a practicing attorney, so trust me, I'm not saying my views of the Constitution are "right," but it scares me to think of some of my former classmates interpretation of the constitution.

    If you truly believe that there are a million different interpretations of the Constitution, all of which are equally valid, it seems like you would also believe there is no definitive answer to anything.

    After all, everything is open to a different interpretation, correct?

    As it is, one of the most important aspects of any law is that it is predictable, prospective, and well-known. If you allow random people to be on the SCOTUS for short terms, the constitutional law of the US would become extremely unpredictable and almost worthless.

    In two years, gun control could become very restrictive, then two years later, completely banned, then completely unrestricted two years later. That would be very damaging to the country. Upon what laws would we base our behavior?

    If our laws become unpredictable, it would be damaging to every aspect of American life. Look at countries with unpredictable laws. They aren't very great places to live.
     
    #8 SirCharlesFan, Apr 9, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2010
  9. YallMean

    YallMean Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Messages:
    14,277
    Likes Received:
    3,807
    Well, numerous papers have been written on this topic.
    There is no right or wrong answer. Either way you will have a problem. The current tenure system favors stability over flexibility.
     
  10. OddsOn

    OddsOn Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    2,555
    Likes Received:
    90
    Do you mean before or after FDR stacked the court?
     
  11. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Contributing Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    18,222
    Likes Received:
    13,423
    I hate to break it to you, but FDR never actually stacked the court.

    <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/V8lT1o0sDwI&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/V8lT1o0sDwI&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
     
  12. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    After, but before MacArthur pushed the Koreans back into China and helped Truman get a third term; which allowed him to pass the Equal Rights Amendment.
     
  13. Kojirou

    Kojirou Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    Messages:
    6,180
    Likes Received:
    281
    The idea of a random dude who knows nothing trying to interpret the Constitution? Does this deserve the Billy Madison Idiot Speech video?


    Seriously, you think a random guy is more qualified for interpreting the law than people who have going to law schools and serving for years? No. This idea is beyond absurd.
     
  14. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,617
    Likes Received:
    6,244
    If you look at history I don't think the supreme court was ever supposed to be as powerful as it is, but the court made itself powerful.
     
  15. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,155
    Likes Received:
    14,304
    For your sake, I hope you're trying to be funny to make some sort of a point in a Colbert kind of way.

    Not sure what that point is, but, you really are out on a limb.
     
  16. Air Langhi

    Air Langhi Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2000
    Messages:
    21,617
    Likes Received:
    6,244
    Of course I am being a little facetious, but the concept of having 9 people decide the fate of the country on either side (republican or democrat) is something people should think about.
     
    #16 Air Langhi, Apr 9, 2010
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2010
  17. Rashmon

    Rashmon Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2000
    Messages:
    19,155
    Likes Received:
    14,304
    What are the three branches of government and how do they interact?
     
  18. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Yes, a $3-4 trillion annual budget and 1,000-strong nuclear arsenal is too much power.
     
  19. Dairy Ashford

    Dairy Ashford Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    14,502
    Likes Received:
    1,831
    Give or take the entire District and Circuit Court system.
     
  20. krosfyah

    krosfyah Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2001
    Messages:
    7,435
    Likes Received:
    1,094
    I love how you start the premise that the constitution is open to interpretation by suggesting that the one of the very clearly defined parts is "unAmerican". Nicely done.

    The words "Fair" and "American" are not interchangable concepts.

    Try this. Go to a restaurant and order Black Bean Soup ...with no black beans.
     

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now