Our Supreme Court has lost its honor

[BDBoop]

Our Supreme Court has lost its honor - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)

/snip

We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.
And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The decision was nakedly political. “The case didn’t just scar the Court’s record,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker, “it damaged the Court’s honor.”

Its honor has never fully recovered. Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bush’s behalf in Florida in 2000.

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court “gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law” which amounted to “a boon for Republicans.”

It looks to me like there are two separate and distinct issues to discuss. First, the SCOTUS placed themselves above the other two branches, and second, they are using said power in a corrupt fashion.

 

[Liability]

Marshall was wrong. It is, instead, emphatically the province of the Legislative Branch to say what the law is.

The SCOTUS is reclaiming its honor, by the way.

Other than that, a really "meh" OP.

 

[dblack]

It's the job of the court to "judge" whether our leaders are following the law or not.

This decision is definitely ideological, but I don't see how it's political. This is not about influencing an election or favoring one party or the other. But it is about the central question of our time: Will we have a Constitutionally limited government or not?

 

[BDBoop]

Marshall was wrong. It is, instead, emphatically the province of the Legislative Branch to say what the law is.

The SCOTUS is reclaiming its honor, by the way.

Other than that, a really "meh" OP.

Couldn't have been that bad, you addressed it instead of attacking me. Or are you feeling under the weather.

 

[elvis]

Gonna change your mind if obamacare is upheld?

 

[BDBoop]

I'd rather give my actual reaction after the fact that my current one (in a vacuum).

 

[Liability]

Marshall was wrong. It is, instead, emphatically the province of the Legislative Branch to say what the law is.

The SCOTUS is reclaiming its honor, by the way.

Other than that, a really "meh" OP.

Couldn't have been that bad, you addressed it instead of attacking me. Or are you feeling under the weather.

And, true to form, you revert to trying to make it about me. Pretty transparent of you.

Your vapid efforts aside, the fact remains, people quote Justice Marshall on that "point" as though the fact that he said it somehow makes it true. It doesn't.

And the fact is, the SCOTUS runs the risk of appearing political anytime it hands down a decision. It hasn't lost any honor in the process EXCEPT when they have allowed purely partisan political inclinations to override what the Constitution actually commands.

 

[Artevelde]

Our Supreme Court has lost its honor - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)

/snip

We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.
And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The decision was nakedly political. “The case didn’t just scar the Court’s record,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker, “it damaged the Court’s honor.”

Its honor has never fully recovered. Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bush’s behalf in Florida in 2000.

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court “gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law” which amounted to “a boon for Republicans.”

It looks to me like there are two separate and distinct issues to discuss. First, the SCOTUS placed themselves above the other two branches, and second, they are using said power in a corrupt fashion.

Are you trying to say that Roe v Wade was a dreadful mistake?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Marshall was wrong. It is, instead, emphatically the province of the Legislative Branch to say what the law is.

The SCOTUS is reclaiming its honor, by the way.

Other than that, a really "meh" OP.

And yet, the gop in general and conservatives in particular reject an activist court, what has the court been if not activist since Bush v. Gore?

 

[Leweman]

A court is always activist to if they a rule in a way that doesn't support a one side of views over the other.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The Supreme Court never had any honor.

 

[Liability]

Marshall was wrong. It is, instead, emphatically the province of the Legislative Branch to say what the law is.

The SCOTUS is reclaiming its honor, by the way.

Other than that, a really "meh" OP.

And yet, the gop in general and conservatives in particular reject an activist court, what has the court been if not activist since Bush v. Gore?

You don't have a clue what "activist" means.

 

[Si modo]

Well, of course it's the legislative branch's responsibility to make law, but the clarification of those laws has always been the responsibility of the higher courts. And, if a law is unconstitutional, that is also the higher courts' final call.

Balance of power. It works, slowly at time, but it works.

 

[Si modo]

Still sticking with your story, Boop?

 

[Ernie S.]

I agree with the thread title.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Our Supreme Court has lost its honor - Roger Simon - POLITICO.com

The greatest power the justices have is carved into the marble of the Supreme Court Building and gilded in gold: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.”

These are the words of John Marshall, the fourth U.S. chief justice, written in 1803. His decision established forever that the Supreme Court had the right to uphold or strike down laws passed by Congress.

Nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given this power. The Supreme Court took it in a 4-0 decision. (There were only six members on the court at the time and two were sick.)

/snip

We realized they were human beings with political opinions, but we expected them to put those opinions aside.
And then came 2000 and the court’s 5-4 decision that made George W. Bush the president of the United States. The decision was nakedly political. “The case didn’t just scar the Court’s record,” Jeffrey Toobin wrote in The New Yorker, “it damaged the Court’s honor.”

Its honor has never fully recovered. Our current court is led by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was appointed by Bush in 2005 after having worked on Bush’s behalf in Florida in 2000.

The signature of the Roberts Court, Toobin wrote, has been its eagerness to overturn the work of legislatures. This is hardly conservative doctrine but today, politics trumps even ideology. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the court “gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law” which amounted to “a boon for Republicans.”

It looks to me like there are two separate and distinct issues to discuss. First, the SCOTUS placed themselves above the other two branches, and second, they are using said power in a corrupt fashion.

The guy thinks that the court that upheld Obamacare has no honor, and you agree with him.

Interesting, to say the least.

 

[BDBoop]

I posted this before they ruled, and boy are you pissy? Were you expecting to be celebrating?

I still can't answer Elvis, I'm too busy celebrating.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I posted this before they ruled, and boy are you pissy? Were you expecting to be celebrating?

I still can't answer Elvis, I'm too busy celebrating.

These five people just sold out ALL Americans by denying individual liberties and pounding one more nail in the coffin of the Constitution.

 

[BDBoop]

Nope. Not buying into your pessimism today.

 

[Si modo]

Obama should have said, "Read my lips" when he said O-care wouldn't cause a rise in taxes. Of course, thinking persons knew better.