Bet You Don't Know The Real Job Of The Supreme Court

"I know you don't believe in evolution"


You know nothing of the kind.


In fact, you know nothing.
Please enlighten me. Do you believe life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (regardless of how it happened)?


"Please enlighten me."

That would be a full-time job.



You wrote this....
"I know you don't believe in evolution"
Do you have any links to prove that?
Do you have any links that disprove that?

So you can't answer such a simple question? Do you not know the answer?
 
1. OK....here it is:
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.

That, and only that, is its job.




... the Constitution lists the specific limitation of the federal government, in article 1, section 8, and reserves all other functions to the states (10th amendment).

That is not what has developed: the Court now sees its role as ubiquitous, and unlimited, and includes writing laws among its roles. Itā€™s pronouncements beyond the role established by the Founders, should be either ignored, or treated as red and green lights are in Romeā€¦as merely suggestions.

The irony is that a court of law has purloinedā€¦stolenā€¦power not relegated to it.




2. Here is a perfect example of an issue the Court should not have taken on, because it is not a function of the federal government.....abortion.

Thom Hartmann, extreme Liberal radio show host, discusses the abortion case as it was decided by the Supreme Court:

ā€œā€¦D&C procedures, an abbreviation for dilation and curettage, the opening of the cervix and removal of the uterine lining. If there was a fertilized egg implanted on that lining, it came out along with the uterine tissue. This was a generally safe method for girls to get abortions, if their parents could afford the hospital and a friendly family doctor would certify that the girl was having ā€œdifficult periodsā€ and thus needed the D&C procedure. But for most women in the United States, options were far more limited and far more dangerous.

The Supreme Court took the case because it recognized the growing number of young women dying from illegal procedures, and the class issues involved. Abortion isnā€™t mentioned in the Constitution, and itā€™s hardly mentioned in any of the nonmedical literature of that era. With no constitutional foundation, the Court had to find some basis on which to decide the case.ā€ ā€œThe Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,ā€ Thom Hartmann, P. 90




3. Consider carefully what Hartmann is admittingā€¦ā€With no constitutional foundationā€¦.ā€

Why should the Court have decided it at all????


In order to understand what the Court has stolen, one must be historically astute, must have studied the basis on which our nation was created: Federalism. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..."
Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditionsā€¦.with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution.




Based on the concept of federalism, there was no need for a Supreme Court making certain that every locality had the very same view of culture, custom, tradition, and values.

Ronald Reagan used the phrase ā€˜voting with your feet,ā€™ meaning move to where you are more comfortable with the rules, and the laws.
This nation was founded on individualism, not on collectivism.

That is not what has developed.
I know you don't believe in evolution but the fact is that everything evolves or it breaks. Federalism ("Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditionsā€¦.with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? If one state wanted to discriminate against a group that didn't exist when the Constitution was written, did they have that right?

" Federalism ("Each state should be allowed to have its own statutes, customs, and traditionsā€¦.with the exception of any issues and specifications spelled out in the Constitution") is a fine ideal but the reality of it was very different. If one state condoned slavery but another did not what was to become of runaway slaves? "

They don't teach you how to read in government school, huh?


The very first item in the OP...

The Real Job Of The Supreme Court

1.OK....here it is:
The Supreme Court was meant to compare legislation passed by the Congress, and signed by the President, to the specific language of the Constitution.

The Constitution includes the amendments.....you don know what an amendment is, don't you, you dunce????

Is slavery covered in the above???????????



Now....where does the Constitution say that every state must have the very same rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, and traditions??????



WHERE???????



"Laboratories of democracy" is a phrase popularized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann to describe how a "state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country."[1]

This concept explains how within the federal framework, there exists a system of state autonomy where state and local governments act as social "laboratories," where laws and policies are created and tested at the state level of the democratic system, in a manner similar (in theory, at least) to the scientific method. An example today would be the legalization of marijuana in Colorado despite the fact that it is illegal federally.

The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "all 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." This is a basis for the "laboratories of democracy" concept,ā€¦ā€ Laboratories of democracy - Wikipedia



Somehow, the view has been obtained, that every person in every state must be governed by exactly the statutes, regulations, and laws that none unelected Justices decide.

That's not the basis on which this nation was created.
"Now....where does the Constitution say that every state must have the very same rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, and traditions??????"
The Constitution provides protections for the right of gun ownership and free speech. Every state must have the same (minimum) protections for those rights. The right to an abortion was seen by the Court in the light as these other rights.



Your really can't read, can you.

Have someone with a higher level of comprehension than you do, explain the question....any third grader will do.



"Now....where does the Constitution say that every state must have the very same rules, regulations, laws, statutes, customs, and traditions??????"
 
"I know you don't believe in evolution"


You know nothing of the kind.


In fact, you know nothing.
Please enlighten me. Do you believe life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (regardless of how it happened)?


"Please enlighten me."

That would be a full-time job.



You wrote this....
"I know you don't believe in evolution"
Do you have any links to prove that?
Do you have any links that disprove that?

So you can't answer such a simple question? Do you not know the answer?


Did you post this?

"I know you don't believe in evolution"



Do you have any links to prove that?
 
"I know you don't believe in evolution"


You know nothing of the kind.


In fact, you know nothing.
Please enlighten me. Do you believe life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (regardless of how it happened)?


"Please enlighten me."

That would be a full-time job.



You wrote this....
"I know you don't believe in evolution"
Do you have any links to prove that?
Do you have any links that disprove that?

So you can't answer such a simple question? Do you not know the answer?


Did you post this?

"I know you don't believe in evolution"



Do you have any links to prove that?
Do you really think I'm going to hunt through your long cut and paste jobs when you could prove me wrong with just a one word answer to the question:
Do you believe in evolution?​
 
"I know you don't believe in evolution"


You know nothing of the kind.


In fact, you know nothing.
Please enlighten me. Do you believe life on earth evolved from a common ancestor (regardless of how it happened)?


"Please enlighten me."

That would be a full-time job.



You wrote this....
"I know you don't believe in evolution"
Do you have any links to prove that?
Do you have any links that disprove that?

So you can't answer such a simple question? Do you not know the answer?


Did you post this?

"I know you don't believe in evolution"



Do you have any links to prove that?
Do you really think I'm going to hunt through your long cut and paste jobs when you could prove me wrong with just a one word answer to the question:
Do you believe in evolution?​



Not at all.

Liberals are known to be, and accepting of, the appellation..."Liars."

It that taught directly in government school?
 
Do you really think I'm going to hunt through your long cut and paste jobs when you could prove me wrong with just a one word answer to the question:
Do you believe in evolution?​
Not at all.
See, that wasn't so hard now was it? Keep it up and you might get used to honesty.



Get lost, creep.
Now PC. It's not very nice calling that motherfucker a creep now, is it ?:10:
 
"...USAToday reported that the Federal Judges Association was calling an emergency meeting. Its president, District Judge Cynthia Rufe, said the idea was to address concerns about how Justice officials and the President were intervening in sensitive cases.

That shocked a number of federal judges, and Judge Rufe later tried to play it all down. Not, though, before one of the towering figures on the Second Circuit, Jose Cabranes, fired off to Judge Rufe a now widely circulated email. It expressed concern that the emergency meeting would ā€œpurport to speak for the federal judiciary on a pending political question.ā€

ā€œI urge you to come off this precipice, and to withdraw from active politics in the name of the federal judges of this country,ā€ Judge Cabranes, a longtime member of the FJA, wrote in his brief cable. ā€œIf you do not do so, you risk confusing the public about the role of the courts in our constitutional order and thereby deepening the crisis in confidence in our institutions.ā€

That strikes us as sage advice for all 870 of the judges commissioned under Article III of the Constitution. It may not be easy for a judge to keep his cool in these times. "
The Resistance Starts To Infect Our Courts
 

Forum List

Back
Top