Supreme Court Justice Kagen: Our Rulings Must Follow Public Sentiments

[woodwork201]

A right is not a power of government. The supreme court interprets the constitution and have ruled that the 10th amendment applies only to things that are explicit governmeny powers. Rights are not government powers.

What an idiotic diversion. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government has the power to create rights out of thin air and make them federally protected? I don't understand what you're getting at.

The 9th says there are other rights. The 10th said that the powers of the Federal government are only those enumerated. Therefore the Federal government has no power to decide any right not enumerated. Just as the Court said in Dobbs, everything else goes to the States, or to the People. That's how the 9th and 10th go hand-in-hand.

If you are arguing a different view point on this, then say what it is you mean and quit making stupid one-liners. Until you have something more intelligent to say, this discussion is over.

 

[j-mac]

SPIN! SPIN! SPIN! The title of this thread is a blatant lie. She said NOTHING of the kind.

What the Justice REALLY said:

“I’m not talking about any particular decision or even any particular series of decisions, but if over time the court loses all connection with the public and with public sentiment, that’s a dangerous thing for a democracy,” Kagan said at a judicial conference in Montana.

And she is absolutely correct.

Then you like her, don’t understand what the SCOTUS was created for in our constitution…

 

[j-mac]

Overturning all decisions the radical right don't like because the Federalist Society has packaged and packed the SC with corrupt judges from the right, has nothing to do with the Constituition.

Dark money is undermining the Constitution and the freedoms and privacy provision it contains therein, to ensure an evangelical Christian governance of the country. This is a generational product of the Christian right that started with Liberty University.

Attack religion like a good communist…

 

[Leviticus]

What an idiotic diversion. Are you suggesting that the Federal Government has the power to create rights out of thin air and make them federally protected? I don't understand what you're getting at.

The 9th says there are other rights. The 10th said that the powers of the Federal government are only those enumerated. Therefore the Federal government has no power to decide any right not enumerated. Just as the Court said in Dobbs, everything else goes to the States, or to the People. That's how the 9th and 10th go hand-in-hand.

If you are arguing a different view point on this, then say what it is you mean and quit making stupid one-liners. Until you have something more intelligent to say, this discussion is over.

The Supreme Court interprets the constitutution. They alone decide what is in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment specifically states that the rights written in the Constitution are not the only rights. Joseph her friend court has the authority to interpret the Constitution to include other rights they've done it in numerous times.

For example your right to travel between states was not a right until the Supreme Court ruled it as a right

 

[woodwork201]

The Supreme Court interprets the constitutution. They alone decide what is in the Constitution. The Ninth Amendment specifically states that the rights written in the Constitution are not the only rights. Joseph her friend court has the authority to interpret the Constitution to include other rights they've done it in numerous times.

For example your right to travel between states was not a right until the Supreme Court ruled it as a right

Wow. you are the back of the herd sheep, aren't you? So much a sheep, that you haven't seen anything other than sheep poop for a long time.

The Supreme Court has one purpose, constitutionally: to be the last level of appeal in any judicial matter - civil suit or criminal case. They are no more than the highest appellate court.

In Marbury, the Supreme Court rightfully said that they must consider the constitutionality of the applicable law. Then they twisted that so that now they only consider constitutionality and won't take a case without constitutional implications.

Even so, as long as the Congress allows them to focus only on cases with a constitutional argument, their purpose, even still, is that of the highest appellate court.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every law is considered constitutional until the Court hears it. Nowhere does it say that the job of the Court is to review every Federal or State law. They have no power at all except to hear the case before them.

The Supreme Court Is Not The Final Say On The Constitution

Courts' rulings are not the supreme law of the land, even rulings from the Supreme Court. The judiciary is not the final arbiter on the Constitution.

thefederalist.com

 

[Leviticus]

Wow. you are the back of the herd sheep, aren't you? So much a sheep, that you haven't seen anything other than sheep poop for a long time.

The Supreme Court has one purpose, constitutionally: to be the last level of appeal in any judicial matter - civil suit or criminal case. They are no more than the highest appellate court.

In Marbury, the Supreme Court rightfully said that they must consider the constitutionality of the applicable law. Then they twisted that so that now they only consider constitutionality and won't take a case without constitutional implications.

Even so, as long as the Congress allows them to focus only on cases with a constitutional argument, their purpose, even still, is that of the highest appellate court.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that every law is considered constitutional until the Court hears it. Nowhere does it say that the job of the Court is to review every Federal or State law. They have no power at all except to hear the case before them.

The Supreme Court Is Not The Final Say On The Constitution

Courts' rulings are not the supreme law of the land, even rulings from the Supreme Court. The judiciary is not the final arbiter on the Constitution.

thefederalist.com

Their role as the final authority in all criminal and civil cases, including those involving constitutional disputes, makes the supreme court the sole authority in what is and what isn't included in the constitution. This is where the concept of judicial review comes from. Outside of a specific amendment being passed, the supreme court and the supreme court alone decides what is and isn't part of the constitution.

They have, numerous times, ruled that certain rights are included in the constitution, under the 9th amendment, which were not included in the bill of rights. and since they are the only ones who have the legal auyuthority to decide this, whatever rights they rule are included, are considered constitutional rights.

Rights created by court ruling include everything from interstate travel, co-habitation (This means the right for two or more people to live in the same household), and marriage. Now when I say marriage, I don't mean just interracial or same sex marriage, but the literal right to anyone to get married at all was not a right until the court ruled it as such. This is actually where the rulings in favor of interracial and same sex marriage comes from. According to the supreme court, marriage is a right included in the constitution. Because of this, states can't not refuse this right or disciminate, without establishing what is known as a public policy exemption. This means that there is a valid reason why a right should not apply to certain situations. To use an old example of a public policy exemption to the freedom of speech, yelling fire in a crowded movie theater.


The court ruled in favor of both interracial and same sex marriage because they found that the states that banned these practices had not proven that there was legitimate need for a public policy exemption to the right of marriage when it came to interracial and same sex couples, and therefore such bans violated the constitutional rights of those the bans effected.