Are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with?

[Nutz]

IN THE END, ONLY GOD'S LAW ARE UNIVERSAL.

God? No imaginary creatures please

Only imaginary if you have no faith! But I won't share my faith with you, just my opinions.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IN THE END, ONLY GOD'S LAW ARE UNIVERSAL.

God? No imaginary creatures please

Only imaginary if you have no faith! But I won't share my faith with you, just my opinions.

Faith is an imaginary process

 

[MDiver]

As the Supreme Court is the highest court of law in the land, their decision is final. You don't have to like it, but you do have to respect it to the point of obeying it. Failure to obey and the law comes down on you and you are in no position to object to its enforcement.
However, in history, President Andrew Jackson wanted to move "all" native americans west of the Mississippi. His plan was taken to the Supreme Court, which decided that he could not do it. His response was...."let's see them enforce it" and moved them anyway.
The Supreme Court doesn't have actual enforcement agents and thus could do nothing. Obviously, times have changed and local, state and federal law enforcement agencies abide by decisions made there.
So, do as you wish, but know there could be consequences to actions taken counter to current laws handed down by the Supreme Court.

 

[Mr. H.]

The most innocuous of actions can have repercussions.

A simple possession, an innocent utterance, the company of a close friend.

This world is comprised of a myriad of political and legal environments.

I happen to like mine.

Unless and until bitch-slaps are outlawed.

 

[orogenicman]

Simple question: Are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with?

Simpler question: Do you? If not, why not? Are we not a nation of laws and not men? Do you read decisions you disagree with or do you mostly get information on them from media/mixed media?

I'm curious because I often find myself agreeing with ideological opponents on issues of law and court decisions.

ex: Citizens United. While I find much of what it allows repugnant, I find much of the decision (absent a few crazy ideas from Kennedy) sound. I ask myself "Don't like it? Why not fight for change?"

You can respect the process (i.e., the rule of law), even if you don't agree with the ruling.

 

[Pogo]

You are obligated to follow the law of the land...if not, face the consequences.

I will abide by laws, and I will break no laws in my protestations of those with which I vehemently disagree.

Assuming bitch-slaps aren't illegal.

I thought the question was whether one is obligated to respect the decision. That's a different thing from compliance.

To abide is to respect. To respect is to abide, dude.

Well, no it ain't dude.

I might not respect the speed limit on the big hill between here and town. But if there's a state trooper behind me I'm going to abide by the law. Not because I believe in it but because I know what will happen if I don't. When he's gone I'll do what I want. Either way my view of the speed limit is the same -- dim.

Ain't rocket surgery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are obligated to follow the law of the land...if not, face the consequences.

I will abide by laws, and I will break no laws in my protestations of those with which I vehemently disagree.

Assuming bitch-slaps aren't illegal.

I thought the question was whether one is obligated to respect the decision. That's a different thing from compliance.

To abide is to respect. To respect is to abide, dude.

So Negroes didn't respect the Jim Crow laws?

This is 2014. Set your sun dial.

Dante's question is respectful and accurate.

Those slaves who got happy feet and those who aided them probably did not respect the law before the aforesaid broke the law.

The Lincoln comment is interesting. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, along with Uncle Tom's Cabin, did much to inflame American opinion South, North, and West. In the South, probably the only act to exceed the above was that of the northern church bells tolling in mourning the execution of John Brown.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Simple question: Are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with?

Simpler question: Do you? If not, why not? Are we not a nation of laws and not men? Do you read decisions you disagree with or do you mostly get information on them from media/mixed media?

I'm curious because I often find myself agreeing with ideological opponents on issues of law and court decisions.

ex: Citizens United. While I find much of what it allows repugnant, I find much of the decision (absent a few crazy ideas from Kennedy) sound. I ask myself "Don't like it? Why not fight for change?"

Yes, are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with, as mandated by Article VI of the Constitution, as required by the rule of law, and to ensure the rule of law is applied consistently.

I also take no issue with Citizens United, where in essence the Court held that although undue corporate influence in the political process is indeed a problem, where our politicians can be bought by the highest bidder, seeking to violate the right to free political expression to realize campaign finance reform is indeed un-Constitutional. The Citizens United Court did not 'condone' the undue influence money has in our political process, it only prohibited a specific remedy not allowed by the First Amendment.

We saw the same process unfold with Roe v. Wade, where the Court made no determination whether abortion is right or wrong, good or bad – the Roe Court ruled only that the states could not violate a woman's protected right to privacy by seeking to compel her to have a child against her will. As with Citizens United, the Roe Court did not 'condone' abortion, it only prohibited a specific remedy not allowed by the 4th and 14th Amendments.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Simple question: Are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with?

Simpler question: Do you? If not, why not? Are we not a nation of laws and not men? Do you read decisions you disagree with or do you mostly get information on them from media/mixed media?

I'm curious because I often find myself agreeing with ideological opponents on issues of law and court decisions.

ex: Citizens United. While I find much of what it allows repugnant, I find much of the decision (absent a few crazy ideas from Kennedy) sound. I ask myself "Don't like it? Why not fight for change?"

Yes, are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with, as mandated by Article VI of the Constitution, as required by the rule of law, and to ensure the rule of law is applied consistently.

I also take no issue with Citizens United, where in essence the Court held that although undue corporate influence in the political process is indeed a problem, where our politicians can be bought by the highest bidder, seeking to violate the right to free political expression to realize campaign finance reform is indeed un-Constitutional. The Citizens United Court did not 'condone' the undue influence money has in our political process, it only prohibited a specific remedy not allowed by the First Amendment.

We saw the same process unfold with Roe v. Wade, where the Court made no determination whether abortion is right or wrong, good or bad – the Roe Court ruled only that the states could not violate a woman's protected right to privacy by seeking to compel her to have a child against her will. As with Citizens United, the Roe Court did not 'condone' abortion, it only prohibited a specific remedy not allowed by the 4th and 14th Amendments.

 

[Mr. H.]

You are obligated to follow the law of the land...if not, face the consequences.

I will abide by laws, and I will break no laws in my protestations of those with which I vehemently disagree.

Assuming bitch-slaps aren't illegal.

I thought the question was whether one is obligated to respect the decision. That's a different thing from compliance.

To abide is to respect. To respect is to abide, dude.

Well, no it ain't dude.

I might not respect the speed limit on the big hill between here and town. But if there's a state trooper behind me I'm going to abide by the law. Not because I believe in it but because I know what will happen if I don't. When he's gone I'll do what I want. Either way my view of the speed limit is the same -- dim.

Ain't rocket surgery.

The law is always behind your shoulder.

As am I.

 

[Pogo]

You are obligated to follow the law of the land...if not, face the consequences.

I will abide by laws, and I will break no laws in my protestations of those with which I vehemently disagree.

Assuming bitch-slaps aren't illegal.

I thought the question was whether one is obligated to respect the decision. That's a different thing from compliance.

To abide is to respect. To respect is to abide, dude.

Well, no it ain't dude.

I might not respect the speed limit on the big hill between here and town. But if there's a state trooper behind me I'm going to abide by the law. Not because I believe in it but because I know what will happen if I don't. When he's gone I'll do what I want. Either way my view of the speed limit is the same -- dim.

Ain't rocket surgery.

The law is always behind your shoulder.

As am I.

I thought that was the remnants of a spider web I walked through.

The law is much easier to track. I always know where they are. I can smell 'em.
Well, almost always. There was that one time... but he had nothin'.

 

[Mr. H.]

You are obligated to follow the law of the land...if not, face the consequences.

I will abide by laws, and I will break no laws in my protestations of those with which I vehemently disagree.

Assuming bitch-slaps aren't illegal.

I thought the question was whether one is obligated to respect the decision. That's a different thing from compliance.

To abide is to respect. To respect is to abide, dude.

So Negroes didn't respect the Jim Crow laws?

This is 2014. Set your sun dial.

Dante's question is respectful and accurate.

Those slaves who got happy feet and those who aided them probably did not respect the law before the aforesaid broke the law.

The Lincoln comment is interesting. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, along with Uncle Tom's Cabin, did much to inflame American opinion South, North, and West. In the South, probably the only act to exceed the above was that of the northern church bells tolling in mourning the execution of John Brown.

How genteel... and moribund.

You got all the bases covered as usual.

 

[Mr. H.]

You are obligated to follow the law of the land...if not, face the consequences.

I will abide by laws, and I will break no laws in my protestations of those with which I vehemently disagree.

Assuming bitch-slaps aren't illegal.

I thought the question was whether one is obligated to respect the decision. That's a different thing from compliance.

To abide is to respect. To respect is to abide, dude.

Well, no it ain't dude.

I might not respect the speed limit on the big hill between here and town. But if there's a state trooper behind me I'm going to abide by the law. Not because I believe in it but because I know what will happen if I don't. When he's gone I'll do what I want. Either way my view of the speed limit is the same -- dim.

Ain't rocket surgery.

The law is always behind your shoulder.

As am I.

I thought that was the remnants of a spider web I walked through.

The law is much easier to track. I always know where they are. I can smell 'em.
Well, almost always. There was that one time... but he had nothin'.

,
Push it to the limit, rebel. Trick them. Trickster punk.

 

[PratchettFan]

Simple question: Are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with?

Simpler question: Do you? If not, why not? Are we not a nation of laws and not men? Do you read decisions you disagree with or do you mostly get information on them from media/mixed media?

I'm curious because I often find myself agreeing with ideological opponents on issues of law and court decisions.

ex: Citizens United. While I find much of what it allows repugnant, I find much of the decision (absent a few crazy ideas from Kennedy) sound. I ask myself "Don't like it? Why not fight for change?"

Respect? No. Comply? Yes. But there are methods by which the laws can be changed.

 

[Agit8r]

I don't see why one would respect a decision that one thought was incorrect. However, for better or worse it is part of the common law now (assuming it hasn't subsequently been overturned) and the only recourse that one might reasonably hope for is to amend the constitution to the contrary of the decision (though that is rather a long shot itself)

 

[DGS49]

Are you obligated to use words that add a syllable just for the sake of sounding "smart," when "obliged" would do just as well? What methodology would you utilize to deductify your conclusion?

 

[DGS49]

The decisions of the United States Supreme Court are final and binding on the parties to the case on which the decision is rendered. Furthermore, as to the specific, narrow, issue on which the case turns, it is binding on everyone subject to U.S. legal jurisdiction.

For example, if the USSC had ruled that the mandate of the ACA was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress, then the IRS would be prohibited from assessing the penalty associated with not having health insurance. The IRS and Congress are bound by the decision.

The decision can be "overturned" in a couple of ways. Congress could modify the law to make it Constitutional, pass a new law that meets the Constitutional requirements (as defined in the USSC decision), or a later USSC - perhaps with a couple of new members - could rule IN ANOTHER SIMILAR CASE that the mandate is Constitutional.

As a private citizen, there is nothing you can do to affect the relevant Constitutional law as defined by the USSC, even if it is patently incorrect, as it was with many death penalty cases in the '60's. All you can do is vote for a President and Congresspeople who take the Constitution seriously (or for Progressives, who try to ignore the Constitution altogether), and hope that over time the USSC will be controlled by people who share your views.

Alternatively, if you are motivated and unscrupulous enough to consider assassinating rogue USSC justices...

 

[Syriusly]

Simple question: Are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with?

Simpler question: Do you? If not, why not? Are we not a nation of laws and not men? Do you read decisions you disagree with or do you mostly get information on them from media/mixed media?

I'm curious because I often find myself agreeing with ideological opponents on issues of law and court decisions.

ex: Citizens United. While I find much of what it allows repugnant, I find much of the decision (absent a few crazy ideas from Kennedy) sound. I ask myself "Don't like it? Why not fight for change?"

I am not sure what you mean by 'respect'.

We are obligated to follow the rulings, not agree or respect them.

I disagree with Citizen's United but I don't pretend it isn't the actual current interpretation of the law.

 

[Pogo]

Are you obligated to use words that add a syllable just for the sake of sounding "smart," when "obliged" would do just as well? What methodology would you utilize to deductify your conclusion?

Perhaps economicalizationary practicial concernitudes are not partenance of his criterionization with respectinance to composifying rhetoricalistic narrativities.

I spend a lot of time around doctors -- I can doify this all day...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Simple question: Are we obligated to respect Supreme Court decisions we disagree with?

Simpler question: Do you? If not, why not? Are we not a nation of laws and not men? Do you read decisions you disagree with or do you mostly get information on them from media/mixed media?

I'm curious because I often find myself agreeing with ideological opponents on issues of law and court decisions.

ex: Citizens United. While I find much of what it allows repugnant, I find much of the decision (absent a few crazy ideas from Kennedy) sound. I ask myself "Don't like it? Why not fight for change?"

Respect? No. Comply? Yes. But there are methods by which the laws can be changed.

I was using a different definition of the term 'respect' but thanks for the reply