Election Year Debate

[Aurielius]

The Supreme Court has never been divorced from the political environment in which it has resided , not from the beginning of the country to present. The framers understood this but knew that there had to be a countervailing force to the other two branches that was only accountable to their own conscience. Some but not all Justices have surprised their adherents by forming their own governmental perception divorced from the benefactors that nominated them. If you have no faith in the swings of the political pendulum as it relates to appointments to the bench then one is not patient enough to wait for your turn at bat. Historically the court has been more conservative than the nation at large which is why FDR wanted to stack the court when his social legislation was overturned in the 30's, he at least did not attack the courts validity but took his lumps and moved along...which is the difference between a statesman and a thin skinned politician. Edited April 4, 2012 by Aurielius

[grannywils]

Please note I intend to stay as far away from this particular discussion as possible after adding just this one thought.

 

While, even as a liberal I feel compelled to agree with Aurielius on this one, I must say that in my personal opinion there is a vast difference in the character and ability of many of the current judges as compared to some of those in the more recent and certainly the more distant past. I refer to such Justices as Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, Earl Warren, Abe Fortas, William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Felix Frankerfurter, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Salmon P. Chase, John Marshall,etc., etc. I just do not have the same confidence in the character of our current Court.

 

 

[Aurielius]

Please note I intend to stay as far away from this particular discussion as possible after adding just this one thought.

 

While, even as a liberal I feel compelled to agree with Aurielius on this one, I must say that in my personal opinion there is a vast difference in the character and ability of many of the current judges as compared to some of those in the more recent and certainly the more distant past. I refer to such Justices as Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, Earl Warren, Abe Fortas, William O. Douglas, William Brennan, Felix Frankerfurter, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Salmon P. Chase, John Marshall,etc., etc. I just do not have the same confidence in the character of our current Court.

I had considered but rejected creating a list but can find no real fault with most of your all stars of the bench. :thumbsup:

Edited April 5, 2012 by Aurielius

[Aurielius]

Four years ago our fearless leader made sure that we would not be able to see his law school papers, at the time I was not so interested but now I think I would like to see them and the grading comments attached, since it seems that though a first year undergrad would know the implications of Marbwy v. Madison he does not..

[marharth]

Or maybe its because hes a politician and doesn't care. Next thing you know people are going to ask for his birth certificate again. Edited April 6, 2012 by marharth

[Arthmoor]

Conservatives have vocally complained for years about "judicial activism" on the part of the Supremes and--they were probably right. In at least some cases, that is. However, given that the tables have now been turned in their favor (able to win contentious rulings using their 5-4 majority), it is unlikely that we will be graced with any Republican claims of activism on the part of the present court, even if it were to take place.

Not sure how one could conclude it to be activism of any stripe for an unconstitutional overreach of Congressional authority to be peeled back and struck down. Following the Constitution and correctly overturning a law that had no legitimate bases to begin with is exactly what Judicial Review is for. It's not for liberals to use as a means to legislate what they wanted via the courts when they couldn't get it via the Congress.

 

Or maybe its because hes a politician and doesn't care. Next thing you know people are going to ask for his birth certificate again.

Well he should care, because he billed himself as a constitutional scholar before running for office. This isn't the kind of person I'd want teaching my children about US law since he clearly doesn't understand how our government works. Which plays into him not understanding why his birth certificate should have been handed over the day he chose to run for president. We shouldn't have to force it out of him 2 years AFTER he's taken office.

[marharth]

The president requires to have a birth certificate to prove his birth. That doesn't mean he his required to put it on public display because a bunch of nutjobs think he is a illegal immigrant.

 

He should care. But he doesn't just like any other politician. He clearly does understand how the government works, he simply doesn't care. No one you elect will ever care. If he can get reelected he will do whatever he wants in office. That applies to every single other person you will elect.

 

I don't see the point in trying to slam Obama with crap like that when you could be focusing on why he is actually a problem.

Edited April 6, 2012 by marharth

[Arthmoor]

The president requires to have a birth certificate to prove his birth. That doesn't mean he his required to put it on public display because a bunch of nutjobs think he is a illegal immigrant.

Actually it does.

 

Article II, Section I:

No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

 

It does not make one a nutjob to demand proof, when every other candidate for the office EVER has done so without batting an eye. And yes, the Dems made McCain do the same thing after they thought his being born on a military base in Panama might get him kicked out of the race. He provided the required proof without hesitation.

 

Obama made everyone wait until 2010 before resolving that issue. So all he was doing was fueling lots of conspiracy theories and crazy talk. For which he has only himself to blame.

 

He should care. But he doesn't just like any other politician.

There are numerous politicians who DO care. You are correct in that Obama obviously doesn't.

 

He clearly does understand how the government works

I was inclined to believe that until his ridiculous statement about SCOTUS setting dangerous precedent and all that talk about being unelected. He put two of those people on the court himself. though it's become clear now that he had a very clear agenda driven reason for doing so.

 

I don't see the point in trying to slam Obama with crap like that when you could be focusing on why he is actually a problem.

I don't have the patience or the desire to rehash 5 years of why Obama is actually a problem. Had people paid attention the firs time, we wouldn't need to be discussing him now.

[marharth]

My point is that it is silly to bash him for what he said on that. It is clear that he is just doing it for political gain. It isn't his actual opinion. Everything he says is just for political gain.

 

It was to his political gain to fuel conspiracy theories. Easier to make the right wing look bad like that. It is kind of silly to ask the president to provide his birth certificate publicly when no one else ever has.

 

You have to provide proof of birth to run for office. You do not have to publicly show your birth certificate.

 

Quick challenge to you, find Bushs birth certificate. And Clintons. Not going to happen.

Edited April 6, 2012 by marharth

[Beriallord]

If Healthcare gets overturned by the Supreme Court, that will be the final nail in the coffin for Obama. Regarding his comments that were no doubt directed at the High Court's review of his Healthcare law shows he has little respect for the constitution, even though I am sure he is familiar with it and sees it more as a barrier in his way. The Constitution was put there for a reason, to keep future leaders just like Obama from just doing whatever the hell they want. And the high court is a separate branch of government with the very intention of making sure the constitution is upheld. If I had to bet, I'd say healthcare, or at least part of it will be deemed unconstitutional.