Supreme Court Offers Opinion, Doesn’t Make Law

Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 9 months ago to Government
13 comments | Share | Flag

Recently had a discussion on this very subject. Excellent piece.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months, 4 weeks ago
    It seems like this problem is worst in headlines and activist commentary on the court. They say the court supported, opposed, or cowardly failed to weigh in on some hot button issue, when in reality it adjudicates some procedural issue unrelated to the decisive issue. It seems like over half the population now thinks if the court takes a case related to a contentious issue, it's job is to render an opinion on the issue itself.

    My impression is in the 80s most people knew politicizing the court was controversial. It seems like now people say forget even the appearance of it being a court and just focus on the politics. The court itself, though, still consists of top lawyers who I believe try (or at least pretend to try) to leave politics out of it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  8 months, 4 weeks ago
      Considering Os two activist appointments I think you are overlooking the obvious on the intentions of some of the SCOTUS members. They are hardly top lawyers, they had conflicts of interests from their private dealing and were placed solely to advance Os agenda. Frankly, they continue to show their true activist intentions every time they speak in dissent, they are not FOR Constitutionality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 8 months, 4 weeks ago
        The fact that the GOP confirmed them should be an indication of their statist, activist goals, too.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  8 months, 4 weeks ago
          Agreed, not only is the swap vast and wide, it's also deep. I'm hoping the grim reaper harvests quite a few RINOs and leftists int he coming years.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 8 months, 3 weeks ago
            Calling by the vague term "the swamp" implies a comforting simplistic narrative where it's not really we the people but just a few bad guys. Get rid of them, and the society just naturally reverts back to a constitutionally limited democratic republic. It's just unfortunate, the narrative goes, that we had a run of bad people like [insert the other politicians here]. It's not true. Ewv is right. We the people have to understand the philosophy of the Constitution. No document can have real teeth to force limited gov't.

            BTW, I am not knowledgeable about which justices are more faithful to the Constitution, but it sounds like a total load of bull to me to say one politician's are the problem. The BS must stop. The only answer is a philosophy along the vein of the framers of the Constitution.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by DrZarkov99 8 months, 3 weeks ago
              Hopefully Trump sticks to the list of justices given to him by the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation. Those groups purposely dug through justices' opinions to find the best constitutionalist thinkers. Maybe if we're lucky, Ginsberg will reach room temperature soon, and another constitutionalist placed in her stead.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  8 months, 3 weeks ago
              Not at all...a murky place full of all manner of creatures, quite a few dangerous, and potential disease. It applies.

              Its not unfortunate CG, it endemic of an increasingly immoral society where there is less and less definitive right and wrong (aka more relativism). When you vote for representative leaders you reap what you sow, it a mirror.

              Intersting take...while the Rs are no saints and there are quite a few I'd like to see gone the Ds, all of them, are anti-American and thus unsuitable for representative American leadership (unless you have a society which reflects them, which we do).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 8 months, 3 weeks ago
      CG you have missed the point of the article. The supreme court was never intended to overrule state laws, just as the federal government was never intended to have more powers than those explicitly stated in the constitution. The ninth and tenth amendments make it clear that there should never have been any slippage of power from the states or the people to the federal government- which includes the supreme court. The supreme court was intended to offer opinion on disagreements between states, to offer opinion when a federal law attempted to overrule state law in areas not explicitly stated in the constitution, and to offer opinion when a state law attempted to overrule federal law in areas explicitly stated as power of the federal government. A state always had the right to ignore the opinion of the supreme court under the rights expressed in the 10th amendment.
      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  CaptainKirk 8 months, 3 weeks ago
      How do you explain Ginsburg Dissenting with the comment ~"This will destroy the public unions, and that's why I cannot vote for it"...
      The sad part is that the right tends to put people on who FOLLOW the constitution EVEN WHEN it hurts. The left has no such illusion. A 5-4 split on Public Unions taking fees from people who don't want to pay them... BECAUSE they are political... That should have been 9-0 or 8-1 accounting for someone who just wanted to write a Dissenting opinion...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo