|
Anyone else see Rick Santorum on Rachel Maddow tonight? He just straight up says that the Supreme Court isn't the final adjudicator of a laws constitutionality and that the other branches are free to ignore their rulings and "pass whatever they want". http://on.msnbc.com/1IjQI9d
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 07:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Oh good, I always wanted to see a presidential candidate strangled on live television by the vengeful revenant of John Marshall.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
Yeah, Presidents should just ignore the Supreme Court when it rules the government is violating the Bill of Rights, let the court try to enforce it. That never had any horrifying outcome historically, or anything.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 09:05
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:Oh good, I always wanted to see a presidential candidate strangled on live television by the vengeful revenant of John Marshall.  It's quotes like this that keep me coming back to these forums.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 10:18
|
|
|
John Roberts has made his decision now let him enforce it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah, Presidents should just ignore the Supreme Court when it rules the government is violating the Bill of Rights, let the court try to enforce it. Forgive my ignorance, but, any example of this really blatantly happening? I know there's the governor of Alabama standing in the doorway of a school, but president examples?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Forgive my ignorance, but, any example of this really blatantly happening? I know there's the governor of Alabama standing in the doorway of a school, but president examples? Presidential candidates saying they would as President, in the true Jacksonian tradition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I don't think they understand that Jackson probably never said that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
alnilam posted:Forgive my ignorance, but, any example of this really blatantly happening? I know there's the governor of Alabama standing in the doorway of a school, but president examples? Jackson and Lincoln both blatantly ignored Supreme Court decisions. Jackson regarding Indian relocation and Lincoln regarding Habeus Corpus. It is apocryphally said that Jackson specifically said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it." Seeing as he didn't threaten to hang John Marshall or challenge him to a duel, the quote is questionably Jacksonian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Jackson and Lincoln both blatantly ignored Supreme Court decisions. Jackson regarding Indian relocation and Lincoln regarding Habeus Corpus. Before becoming President, Lincoln also more or less explicitly argued the "Supreme Court isn't the final adjudicator" position in response to the Dred Scott decision, I believe. (This also places the habeus corpus thing in an understandable context; after a decision as bad as Dred Scott, respect for the Supreme Court was naturally at a pretty low ebb.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Before becoming President, Lincoln also more or less explicitly argued the "Supreme Court isn't the final adjudicator" position in response to the Dred Scott decision, I believe. (This also places the habeus corpus thing in an understandable context; after a decision as bad as Dred Scott, respect for the Supreme Court was naturally at a pretty low ebb.) Plus the whole States having a Civil War thing. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Jackson and Lincoln both blatantly ignored Supreme Court decisions. Jackson regarding Indian relocation and Lincoln regarding Habeus Corpus. It wasn't actually a Supreme Court case that Lincoln ignored, although that's a pretty common misconception. Ex parte Merryman was actually a Federal circuit court ruling, but the circuit court was headed by Chief Justice Taney. Justices also being part of the normal Federal Court structure was apparently not that uncommon back in the day. The case never made it to the actual Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Plus, Lincoln and all of these politicians are right. The Supreme Court is not the final decision, the Constitution is and any legislator that has an issue with a Supreme Court decision can create a constitutional amendment to fix it. But I have always wondered; what happens if two parts of the Constitution contradict each other?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:Plus, Lincoln and all of these politicians are right. The Supreme Court is not the final decision, the Constitution is and any legislator that has an issue with a Supreme Court decision can create a constitutional amendment to fix it. The Supreme Court decides which one wins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Bizarro Kanyon posted:But I have always wondered; what happens if two parts of the Constitution contradict each other? What do you mean? New amendments obviously supersede older ones since we have ones that completely change the way elections are handled and one that repeals a previous amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 05:41
|
|
|
What if we write an amendment to repeal each State's equal suffrage in the Senate without requiring that State's consent, what then.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Presumably the state in question is hosed because 3/4 of the rest of them hate them that much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:57
|
|
|
More fun would be if the National Interstate Popular Vote Compact went into effect. I bet the Court would strike it down but still allow states to adhere to it voluntarily anyway, while pointing out in reality that it was Constitutionally voluntary to begin with, setting a record for most unfalsifiable Supreme Court opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 07:58
|
|
|
What is the difference between a state passing a law and a state doing that thing voluntarily. Isn't passing laws how states generally voluntarily do things like decide how to allocate Electors. VVVV Ah I see VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:33 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 08:08
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is the difference between a state passing a law and a state doing that thing voluntarily. Yeah but they're not allowed to enter into compacts. But there's no way to say they can't coincidentally act as though they had entered into a compact for the purposes of how to allocate electors because how to do so is at their discretion. It does matter in this case though because the NIPVC is a clever way to try to get the popular vote to determine the Presdient by saying that once enough states sign up to determine the Presdient with their combined electors, they'll all choose the, based on the popular vote. Without the threshold probably no or few states would allocate electors based on the national popular vote no matter how much people lobbied for it. eSports Chaebol fucked around with this message at 08:29 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
Comrade Cosmobot posted this in the USPol thread and I figure I'd put it past the specific thread to discuss it, because in light of the (apparent) traction that ridiculous Planned Parenthood video got I'm wondering how this particular potential 5-4 decision will lean. If they even bother to take it up. The pleading of the 3 appeals judges is particularly chilling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Also the entire court was Southern and slave holding. Lincoln should have executed all of them for treason, as there were links to murder plots from the Chief Justice angry that Lincoln had dared to consider arresting him. Despite Thomas and Scalia on the current court, this SCOTUS has come a long way, I hope it improves, and not regress the progress it has made in just the last eight years. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Jul 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:Comrade Cosmobot posted this in the USPol thread and I figure I'd put it past the specific thread to discuss it, because in light of the (apparent) traction that ridiculous Planned Parenthood video got I'm wondering how this particular potential 5-4 decision will lean. If they even bother to take it up. Kennedy is pretty anti-abortion so I could see him striking it down. At that point the best we can hope for is that the dissent begins with: "[conservative justices], do you like Huey Lewis and the News?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
whitey delenda est posted:Comrade Cosmobot posted this in the USPol thread and I figure I'd put it past the specific thread to discuss it, because in light of the (apparent) traction that ridiculous Planned Parenthood video got I'm wondering how this particular potential 5-4 decision will lean. If they even bother to take it up. Since there doesn't seem to be a circuit court split (yet, anyway), would the Supreme Court be likely to take this issue up though? Is a circuit court asking for a certain case to be reconsidered ever enough justification for it to be heard by the Supremes? OTOH they only need 4 votes to grant cert, and I'm sure there's 4 Justices who would love a chance at overturning Roe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
The Roberts Pendulum giveth and the Roberts Pendulum taketh away and it's given quite a bit recently 
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:25
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:John Roberts has made his decision now let him enforce it. "The Court is trying to kill me, Mr. Matthews, but I will kill it!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Even if the conservative justices granted cert, there is no way that the court overturns Roe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
And that case is pretty blatantly settled law, and they've refused to take similar cases before.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Even if the conservative justices granted cert, there is no way that the court overturns Roe. Roe is based on a "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights - privacy. Privacy rights seem like a quaint notion of late. It's particularly interesting in that the government may have full knowledge of every medical procedure that is covered by an insurer - especially with Obamacare in place. I wouldn't be surprised if the liberal judges granted cert in order to put reproductive choice on a more solid footing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Roe is based on a "penumbra" of the Bill of Rights - privacy. Privacy rights seem like a quaint notion of late. It's particularly interesting in that the government may have full knowledge of every medical procedure that is covered by an insurer - especially with Obamacare in place. That would happen to so much gnashing of teeth from the dissent that it would make obergefell look like lockjaw
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I wouldn't be surprised if the liberal judges granted cert in order to put reproductive choice on a more solid footing. Liberal judges aren't going to chance that unless they know for certain that they'll win.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Roe's the paradigmatic example of a good(ish) outcome by way of lousy constitutional doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Roe's the paradigmatic example of a good(ish) outcome by way of lousy constitutional doctrine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:And to be clear, if Roe were overturned abortion would very likely be legal in most places regardless. Public opinion has shifted a lot since the 70s, and basically every other democracy has arrived at Yeah there's a lot of poo poo the civilized world has gotten around to that the US has utterly failed to.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yeah there's a lot of poo poo the civilized world has gotten around to that the US has utterly failed to. Also, "most places" leaves out a lot of people. Even today, states are still putting roadblocks into effect that shut down all but a few clinics. In a country without Roe v. Wade, you would see millions of people without access to the service unless they are willing and able to hop a state or more away to have it done.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 04:25
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Also, "most places" leaves out a lot of people. Even today, states are still putting roadblocks into effect that shut down all but a few clinics. In a country without Roe v. Wade, you would see millions of people without access to the service unless they are willing and able to hop a state or more away to have it done. This is the part that really makes it scary. You'll have these fuckers saying it isn't a de facto ban since people in Houston could just go over to New Mexico to end a pregnancy. Never mind that this is a day's travel each way plus time to recuperate after. Not only do they hate women and prefer them dead, they particularly hate poor women and would rather see them saddled with rape babies before driving them to suicide.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:And to be clear, if Roe were overturned abortion would very likely be legal in most places regardless. Public opinion has shifted a lot since the 70s, and basically every other democracy has arrived at legalizing abortion despite having to vote on it. Uh pro-life activism is a huge phenomenon built up over decades. It is arguably the biggest grassroots political movement since the Civil Rights Movement. Yeah, most states would keep it legal, but those already working on banning it wouldn't, and it could take decades to turn around (assuming it ever would at all without another Supreme Court ruling).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:Uh pro-life activism is a huge phenomenon built up over decades. It is arguably the biggest grassroots political movement since the Civil Rights Movement. quote:Yeah, most states would keep it legal, but those already working on banning it wouldn't, and it could take decades to turn around (assuming it ever would at all without another Supreme Court ruling).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 08:39
|
|
|
ShadowHawk posted:This is in no small part because abortion is legal through a process that was never voted on. "Keep the very firmly in place status quo" just doesn't attract activism the way changing it does, even when the majority agrees with it.). No doubt, and that's really the pernicious side of Roe: without it, by now abortion might be legal anyway, but it it were overturned, it would be a long time till it were universally legal again. Contrast this with gay marriage, where the Court's timing has been perfect (from social acceptance perspective, not a human rights perspective of course).
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 09:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
"Abortion is all so much applesauce" -- Justice Scalia
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2015 09:21
|
|
