Justice Ginsburg upset: USSC won't rule outside the law

[Care4all]

Seriously, sometimes it's a cultural thing-Brown v. Board of Ed. overturned precedent.

Don't you think Dred Scott should have been 'reversed'? (That was moving backwards?) Thanks to the 13th and 14th amendments. Sometimes laws need to get with the times.

Now Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

none of those cases even come close to relating to this case.

In this case the SC chose to go against the individual and side with business and this is what it appears we have to look forward to.

 

[Dr Grump]

Some people have claimed, "All judges legislate from the bench to some extent". In some cases, the evidence supporting it seems obvious, such as when O'Conner invented a timetable out of thinn air by which the University of Michigan should eventually end its racial discrimination. Or when a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the risk of hurting people's feelings was more important than 1st amendment restrictions on speech, and so ruled that the Campaign Finance "Reform" act was constitutional.

But what might a so-called "conservative" judge do, that is similar?

Suppose a judge thought it was wrong to tax incomes. He thinks taxes should only be on duties, excises, etc. He gets a case where someone says he shouldn't have to pay such-and-such a part of his income taxes, and the IRS says he should pay. Despite the clear language of the 16th amendment saying income taxes are OK, this judge says that income taxes are an "unnecessary burden", and so rules that the man does not have to pay. This forms a precedent, and suddenly income taxes are being disallowed right and left as a result.

That would be one (hypothetical) example of a so-called "conservative" judge legislating from the bench. But has anyone ever seen any judge ruling MORE in favor of "conservative" law than the law itself specifies? Or ruling against any law that people felt was too liberal even though it was properly legislated and signed into law?

So-called "liberal" judges err or the side of liberalism frequently. But do so-called "conservative" judges really do it too?

Please, name ONE example.

That is because while conservatives claim they are for small govt and people being free to do what they want to do, the reality they are not like that. They like placing more and more restrictions on people...their judges are no different IMO...

 

[Annie]

none of those cases even come close to relating to this case.

In this case the SC chose to go against the individual and side with business and this is what it appears we have to look forward to.

Actually, having read what the case was about I think SCOTUS acted correctly and the law needs to be changed. Sounds like the women was screwed, but that is the law. Sorry Jillian, we disagree.

 

[Little-Acorn]

That is because while conservatives claim they are for small govt and people being free to do what they want to do, the reality they are not like that. They like placing more and more restrictions on people...their judges are no different IMO...

So you're not able to name any examples of so-called "conservative" judges who have done that, either?

 

[Dr Grump]

So you're not able to name any examples of so-called "conservative" judges who have done that, either?

Don't know enough about them or their decisions to make an informed comment...

 

[Bern80]

Psssssssssst... they can't. That was the point of the law.

But she could outside of 180 days? What is so special about that number?

 

[Gunny]

none of those cases even come close to relating to this case.

In this case the SC chose to go against the individual and side with business and this is what it appears we have to look forward to.

The Supreme Court ruled in accordance with the law. Not for or against the individual or business.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And perhaps they wouldn't. The deletorious effects of judges legislating from the bench according to their own personal whims, rather than leaving that to elected officials who were given that job, are far more dangerous to the nation than what some corporation decides to do. Particularly in issues you haven't shown to be "venal" at all, beyond caling it names.

I'll leave you to devote your own energies to that, jillian. Just make sure you aim at the right target: Legislatures whose job it is to make laws, not the courts.

According to that line of logic, "Brown v. Board of Education" would never have been decided, and the doctrine of "separate but equal", America's version of apartheid, would still be in place.

But more to the point, judges to not make law. They refer laws back to legislature which fail to meet the Constitutional sniff-test or overturn those laws which fail to meet Constitutional muster.

Just because legislatures pass a law doesn't guarantee that it is just or Constitutional.

 

[Care4all]

The Supreme Court ruled in accordance with the law. Not for or against the individual or business.

and from what I learned on C-span, the law HAD BEEN interpreted by the departments of equal opportunity and discrimination and lower court judges over the last 43 years to mean 180 days from EACH paycheck that one was discriminated against...and this was changed by our SC to favor what the Chamber of Commerce and big business wanted the law to mean.

At least this is the way it was explained on c-span? I have not gone in to the case to read the whole thing but I will now, because I would like to know more or the truth about it and it is hard to do such with all these different opinions out there....which is "just typical" of the world we live in today!

care