Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?

[Dante]

I bring in bureaucrats because it is unelected, faceless and mostly unaccountable bureaucrats who in fact write most of the laws we live under both at the federal and state levels.

For example the original Obamacare/Affordable Care Act, written by bureaucrats, ran 906 pages passed by only Democrats who controlled Congress, none of whom had read the legislation. As Pelosi said, they had to pass it to find out what was in it. That was the height of irresponsibility by people who are supposed to be representing those who elected them.

Since passage of the ACA in March, 2010, fourteen years ago, more than 9,000 pages of rules and regulations, all with the force of law to implement the original law, have been added by those faceless unelected bureaucrats. There is no healthcare facility on Earth with sufficient legal support to keep up with all that and comply with everything so all facilities do some of their own interpretation of what the law requires and that usually is not good for their patients.

Still the lower courts and SCOTUS would likely not declare much if any of the law unconstitutional because it was passed by the people's elected representatives and there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a member of congress has to read the legislation before voting on it. (I would support an amendment that would make a Senator or Representative voting on a law the person hadn't read would be illegal/unconstitutional though it would likely not make a lot of difference in what laws are passed.)

Are you confused about laws vs regulations?

Regulatory agencies: many people dislike and fear them and it's understandable. Especially when one is found by them to be doing something shady. The constitutional arguments for and against them have been in the news recently. Very politically partisan and ideological. Not good for the Court.

The PPACA (Obamacare) was passed by the Congress and signed into law by the President. Framing it as bureaucrats writing it? FAILURE!

None of whom read the legislation? Some did and you find that unusual or you cherry picking -- again?

I bet you are clueless about and lie when you can, about the "Shared responsibility payment" that targeted free riders.

I bet you are ignorant of this man and the parties and politicians that were arguing over how to get single payer and not against the idea?

Ever hear of Stuart Altman?

US Representative Jamie Raskin(D) constitutional law professor for 25 years | Alito & Thomas | Due Process Clause & 28 U.S. Code § 455

Raskin is quite the intellectual. Personally, I wish we had a few more like him in the legislative branch of government. Earlier, we did have faux intellects like Newt Gingrich in the House, but we know how that all ended (resigning in disgrace). Raskin: The Justice Department and Attorney...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Dante]

Still the lower courts and SCOTUS would likely not declare much if any of the law unconstitutional because it was passed by the people's elected representatives and there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a member of congress has to read the legislation before voting on it. (I would support an amendment that would make a Senator or Representative voting on a law the person hadn't read would be illegal/unconstitutional though it would likely not make a lot of difference in what laws are passed.)

This is just too weird to actually address.

 

[Dante]

One instance of SCOTUS making law, instead of deferring to Congress, as the COTUS specifies, was a little one, many may have heard of, think it was called Roe versus Wade.

How dumb can you be?

Name the law? Link to it?

Confusing a Supreme Court decision with law making? You're just driving by posting. There are a few posts above this one (same page) that you probably should read before you end up making a fool of yourself -- again

 

[Foxfyre]

One instance of SCOTUS making law, instead of deferring to Congress, as the COTUS specifies, was a little one, many may have heard of, think it was called Roe versus Wade.

Exactly. And SCOTUS was demonized and villified for looking at it as a states rights thing and overturning what in the current court's opinion was an unconstitutional ruling given force of law. Clarence Thomas was villified and demonized when he mentioned that sooner or later the Court would need to revisit gay marriage that was another decision the high court had no constitutional authority to make.

The Court took no position on abortion being right or wrong, and if it does reverse its decision on gay marriage and returns that to the states, it won't take any position on whether same sex marriage is a good thing or bad thing. It would simply be recognizing that the high court has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage in any way.

The bruhaha began with the Democrats saw that their ability to use the high court to do the 'dirty work' they didn't dare stick their necks out to do was slipping away from them.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is just too weird to actually address.

I think only weird to a hard core leftist who is incapable of critical thinking or understanding how our government was designed and for what purpose.

 

[Dante]

I think only weird to a hard core leftist who is incapable of critical thinking or understanding how our government was designed and for what purpose.

You're well known for making outrageously weird claims.

 

[Dante]

Exactly. And SCOTUS was demonized and villified for looking at it as a states rights thing and overturning what in the current court's opinion was an unconstitutional ruling given force of law. Clarence Thomas was villified and demonized when he mentioned that sooner or later the Court would need to revisit gay marriage that was another decision the high court had no constitutional authority to make.

The Court took no position on abortion being right or wrong, and if it does reverse its decision on gay marriage and returns that to the states, it won't take any position on whether same sex marriage is a good thing or bad thing. It would simply be recognizing that the high court has no constitutional authority to regulate marriage in any way.

The bruhaha began with the Democrats saw that their ability to use the high court to do the 'dirty work' they didn't dare stick their necks out to do was slipping away from them.

Thomas ought to go back to sexual assaults on women, pubic hairs on coke cans and watching his vast collection of Long Dong Silver videos

 

[Foxfyre]

You're well known for making outrageously weird claims.

But I can back my 'weird claims' up with credible evidence. Can you back yours up considering that you pretty much never have?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thomas ought to go back to sexual assaults on women, pubic hairs on coke cans and watching his vast collection of Long Dong Silver videos

And with that insanely stupid and malicious post I will bid you good evening. Good Lord, I think some of you people have no integrity or shame at all.

 

[Dante]

But I can back my 'weird claims' up with credible evidence. Can you back yours up considering that you pretty much never have?

Liar

pants on fire

 

[Dante]

people have no integrity or shame at all.

Stop picking on Donald Trump!

 

[Delldude]

How dumb can you be?

Name the law? Link to it?

Confusing a Supreme Court decision with law making? You're just driving by posting. There are a few posts above this one (same page) that you probably should read before you end up making a fool of yourself -- again

Gee whiz....... your boys on the left have insisted it was the law of the land.....

 

[sparky]

What is it people believe?

Mostly what our leaders tell us to Crusty

But then, if your going to fall back on the age old 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', i'll counter with asking specifics of those 2000 page legislations these days

~S~

 

[Dante]

...

you wrote: One instance of SCOTUS making law, instead of deferring to Congress, as the COTUS specifies, was a little one, many may have heard of, think it was called Roe versus Wade.

we asked:
How dumb can you be? Name the law? Link to it?
Confusing a Supreme Court decision with law making? You're just driving by posting.
There are a few posts above this one (same page) that you probably should read before you end up making a fool of yourself -- again

Now you reply with:
Gee whiz....... your boys on the left have insisted it was the law of the land.....

You chose yet again to avoid responding to what is actually written. You're just driving by posting.

 

[Dante]

Mostly what our leaders tell us to Crusty

But then, if your going to fall back on the age old 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', i'll counter with asking specifics of those 2000 page legislations these days

~S~

tell that to your leader

 

[sparky]

tell that to your leader
View attachment 996854

well that's abuse of the law Crusty.....lawfare.......but then i keep telling this crew one mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist.......few get it.....do you? ~S~

 

[Delldude]

you wrote: One instance of SCOTUS making law, instead of deferring to Congress, as the COTUS specifies, was a little one, many may have heard of, think it was called Roe versus Wade.

we asked:
How dumb can you be? Name the law? Link to it?
Confusing a Supreme Court decision with law making? You're just driving by posting.
There are a few posts above this one (same page) that you probably should read before you end up making a fool of yourself -- again

Now you reply with:
Gee whiz....... your boys on the left have insisted it was the law of the land.....

You chose yet again to avoid responding to what is actually written. You're just driving by posting.

Wasn't my claim, think one, of many, who made that same 'pronouncement', said it was law of the land was Chuck.......try again.

 

[Delldude]

You're well known for making outrageously weird claims.

LoL........lol

 

[Dante]

"Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals."

Wasn't my claim, think one, of many, who made that same 'pronouncement', said it was law of the land was Chuck.......try again.

Well I know saying something is "the law of the land" is not the same thing as saying something is a law on the books. You're either purposefully ignorant or purposefully dumb. I have to believe nobody ever pointed to a law. If many did as you claim, you should be able to link to that one.

So were they correct in that it was the law of the land?

 

[Dante]

well that's abuse of the law Crusty.....lawfare.......but then i keep telling this crew one mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist.......few get it.....do you? ~S~

You imbeciles have this fantasy that you're freedom fighters?