High time to revamp the Supreme Court

[ScreamingEagle]

haul them before Congress to explain their positions....it's time we stop treating them like they are Untouchables....

They aren't "untouchables", they are however, under the letter of the Constitution a co-equal branch of government.


>>>>

then it's high time that we start to "touch" them.....

 

[sfcalifornia]

Sounds dumb to me... It's already their job to "adhere to the letter of the Constitution" and they don't... But that's why they say "in your opinion." Both sides we demand anyone that does not vote how they like gets removed.

The best thing people can do at this point is revolt, this does not need to be violent, but maybe it will be. Government should have never pushed people that a point where violence is an option but it seems the US wants it.

Aaw, didn't the decision go your way?

Just go buy more guns. That'll show 'em!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Anyone else surprised that it took the rightwing a whole day to come up with this "plan"....

Gingrich's idea of calling them to testify before Congress to explain their rulings is....uh....well, it was from Newt.

Terrible ideas in the OP. All the way around.

i like Newt's idea......that way our representatives can make sure they toe the Constitutional line.....just as we need to make sure our reps toe the Constitutional line...

 

[Avorysuds]

Everyone knows Obamacare is unconstitutional, even Obama... It's that part of one side (as they are in a minority) does not believe in the constitution. It's really that simple. The constitution and FF’s said no, Obama and some supporters say yes.

No, everyone doesn't know that, including 5 of the Supremes. The Constitution speaks? Pieces of paper don't speak, the SC does that and it did so yesterday.

I don't see how that changes my point, they are going to do what they want unless the people hold them accountable.

 

[Katzndogz]

I think it's a fantastic idea to put people on the court who aren't lawyers (ie - aren't educated in the law)....sounds real.....interesting. Perhaps we could put in celebrities and run the Scotus like Hollywood Squares.

Cher would have a place! It would finally give her a job.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"The idea of a Pure Theory of Law was propounded by the formidable Austrian jurist and philosopher Hans Kelsen (1881–1973). (See bibliographical note) Kelsen began his long career as a legal theorist at the beginning of the 20th century. The traditional legal philosophies at the time, were, Kelsen claimed, hopelessly contaminated with political ideology and moralizing on the one hand, or with attempts to reduce the law to natural or social sciences, on the other hand. He found both of these reductionist endeavors seriously flawed. Instead, Kelsen suggested a ‘pure’ theory of law which would avoid reductionism of any kind. The jurisprudence Kelsen propounded “characterizes itself as a ‘pure’ theory of law because it aims at cognition focused on the law alone” and this purity serves as its “basic methodological principle”"

Link:

The Pure Theory of Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So, I'm sure none of you will read this link and even if most did few would understand it. I'm also sure that Kelsen claim was correct and characterized the comments above as, " hopelessly contaminated with political ideology and moralizing on the one hand, or with attempts to reduce the law to natural or social sciences..."

 

[occupied]

You guys already got unlimited money in politics, what more do want out of them?

 

[Listening]

FDR already tried packin' the Court. Read up about how it went for HIM.

Yup.


And now we're dealing with a Bush-packed court. Some folks just can't be happy....

How is this court any more Bush-packed than Fudge....er Obama packed ?

 

[regent]

The ironic thing is that if the Court did go back to exactly what the Constitution says, they, the Court, would not be allowed to interpret the Constitution. That power was never given to the Court in the Constitution, the Court simply took the power in Marbury vs. Madison. And to continue the irony if the Congress tried to take that power away by law, the Court would find the law unconstitutional.
As Justice Hughes said, "The Constitution is what the Court say it is."

 

[EriktheRed]

FDR already tried packin' the Court. Read up about how it went for HIM.

Yup.


And now we're dealing with a Bush-packed court. Some folks just can't be happy....

How is this court any more Bush-packed than Fudge....er Obama packed ?

How many Justices are Obama appointments again?

 

[Listening]

Anyone else surprised that it took the rightwing a whole day to come up with this "plan"....

Gingrich's idea of calling them to testify before Congress to explain their rulings is....uh....well, it was from Newt.

Terrible ideas in the OP. All the way around.

i like Newt's idea......that way our representatives can make sure they toe the Constitutional line.....just as we need to make sure our reps toe the Constitutional line...

While I am pissed at Roberts and saddened at the SCOTUS decision...this is not the answer.

The brilliance in the Court lies in its original position relative to the rest of government.

The problem has been the use of the court to advance political agendas.....which mostly started with FDR. His failed court packing scheme was an attempt to tip the balance. It failed. As Bork points out, mortality allowed him to do what congress wouldn't. And everything that has been found unconstitutional.....suddenly became constitutional.

In today's world, you have (so glad he's dead) Kennedy and UpChuck Schumer up in front of Alito and Roberts screaming at them about how they can't give back the "gains" of the past 40 years.....Both TK and CS have no clue or could not care less about how it worked...they only wanted their way.

The Court should remain separate. Our problem is that they see far to much stuff as it is. And for this I blame the GOP. They have let the entire discussion get away from states powers and now play the game at the federal level. If it were done right, the SCOTUS would be a part time job.

Not in favor of changing the court. They are not the problem. We (the GOP) are....(the dems are alwasy assholes and ignorant so I don't count them in the discussion...they only pine for more goodies....like animals).

 

[Mustang]

It's obvious the Court has become political in nature as they chip away at our Constitution.....therefore we need to change the Court's parameters....

some suggestions....

1) enlarging the Court to say....19 members...

2) changing tenure to maybe 10 or 20 years...

3) allow for smart non-lawyer appointees....

4) insist that members adhere to the letter of the Constitution or be subject to dismissal....


agree or disagree....?

I have a question. Don't we have to vamp it before we revamp it?

 

[SniperFire]

Are there Constitutional limits to Federal government taxing authority?

 

[EriktheRed]

Not in favor of changing the court. They are not the problem. We (the GOP) are....(the dems are alwasy assholes and ignorant so I don't count them in the discussion...they only pine for more goodies....like animals).

Guess what,

Dems are part of the discussion no matter what you think or say about them.

 

[regent]

The Court has been in the craw of politicians since 1803. It was then the Court decided that they should be the interpreters of the Constitution, not the Congress, not the president. Since that date the Court has just been another body that decides what the Constitution means by their party's politics. But once in a while the Court gets a maverick that decides not as he was appointed to decide but on his own. The big question will Roberts turn out to be a maverick or a true-blue Republican?

 

[EriktheRed]

The Court has been in the craw of politicians since 1803. It was then the Court decided that they should be the interpreters of the Constitution, not the Congress, not the president. Since that date the Court has just been another body that decides what the Constitution means by their party's politics. But once in a while the Court gets a maverick that decides not as he was appointed to decide but on his own. The big question will Roberts turn out to be a maverick or a true-blue Republican?

Personally, I think the main reason he did what he did yesterday was for politics. He didn't want to be the one responsible for downing the whole law and giving the Prez and the Dems a rallying point for the election. He punted, IOW.

He'll still have other opportunities to redeem himself with the wingnuts.

 

[freedombecki]

Are there Constitutional limits to Federal government taxing authority?

Yes the authority to tax is limited to Congress.

 

[regent]

Another theory on Roberts is that as Chief Justice, it will be known as the Robert's Court, and at his age it will be the Robert's Court for a long time, and he would like the Robert's Court go down in tje history books, as a court that was good for the United States, similar to the Warren Court. I don't accept that theory but it would be nice, if true. That was one reason the framers gave the justices the job for life. Roberts could be his own man if he wants.

 

[SniperFire]

Are there Constitutional limits to Federal government taxing authority?

Yes the authority to tax is limited to Congress.

OK. I should rephrase.

Are there Constitutional limits to Congress' taxing authority?

 

[freedombecki]

Are there Constitutional limits to Federal government taxing authority?

Yes the authority to tax is limited to Congress.

OK. I should rephrase.

Are there Constitutional limits to Congress' taxing authority?

I don't know of any, SniperFire.

Back when the Constitution was written, citizens were not too stupid to live.