The Supreme Court could get a lot more undemocratic..

[Wyatt earp]

Jesus Christ and this opinion piece is coming from a law professor?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rt-could-get-lot-more-undemocratic/?outputTyp

What does the "will" of the people have anything to do with the Constitution? If the people had it their way gay marriage would still be illegal.. see California Prop 8



The Supreme Court could get a lot more undemocratic




Leah Litman is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School. She represents multiple DACA recipients in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a case before the Supreme Court.

Despite the significant power it wields, the Supreme Court is among the federal government’s most undemocratic institutions. Its justices are appointed for life terms, and selected and confirmed by presidents and the Senate — which themselves do not necessarily reflect the will of the public.

For this reason, academics often characterize the court as “counter-majoritarian,” meaning that it has the power to stand against the majority of the public sentiment in setting policy. But as counter-majoritarian as the Supreme Court is by design, it could get even worse. This term, the court will review cases pertaining to weighty topics ranging from LGBTQ rights to protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. By the end of next summer, we will have a glimpse into just how undemocratic the new conservative majority on the court is willing to be.

 

[OKTexas]

The courts are suppose to be the last stand against mob rule, I guess the bitch failed her con law class.

.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Jesus Christ and this opinion piece is coming from a law professor?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rt-could-get-lot-more-undemocratic/?outputTyp

What does the "will" of the people have anything to do with the Constitution? If the people had it their way gay marriage would still be illegal.. see California Prop 8



The Supreme Court could get a lot more undemocratic




Leah Litman is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School. She represents multiple DACA recipients in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a case before the Supreme Court.

Despite the significant power it wields, the Supreme Court is among the federal government’s most undemocratic institutions. Its justices are appointed for life terms, and selected and confirmed by presidents and the Senate — which themselves do not necessarily reflect the will of the public.

For this reason, academics often characterize the court as “counter-majoritarian,” meaning that it has the power to stand against the majority of the public sentiment in setting policy. But as counter-majoritarian as the Supreme Court is by design, it could get even worse. This term, the court will review cases pertaining to weighty topics ranging from LGBTQ rights to protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. By the end of next summer, we will have a glimpse into just how undemocratic the new conservative majority on the court is willing to be.

Yes, it stands against the rule of the mob, and for the rule of law. It need not reflect "the will of the people", but must weigh matters only before the Constitution

We are not a pure democracy, where the majority dictates, and never have been. That the mob disagrees with Court rulings does not make the rulings unlawful.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Opinions letters like this blows my mind away, I mean we all learned this stuff (I thought anyways) in the 8th grade...and before that on school house rock

 

[DGS49]

What we have here is a double-whammy. Leftists tend to ignore parts of the law and constitution that they don't like, and lawyers are trained to take preposterous ideas/arguments, and make them sound reasonable. As a result, one wouldn't look to this person to see any cogent information.

The Supreme Court will not DECIDE WHETHER LG.....Q people are protected under current civil rights legislation. The CONGRESS HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT POINT. You know, CONGRESS, the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE?

THis Leftists Lawyer would prefer a setup where the Supreme Court could make shit up when they don't like what the laws and the Constitution say. And she criticizes them for being unwilling to make up new law.

Because she knows that the Congress, having been subjected to a full-court Press by the gay mafia to make this change in the law HAS DECLINED TO DO SO.

Is there no shame in this crowd?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Jesus Christ and this opinion piece is coming from a law professor?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rt-could-get-lot-more-undemocratic/?outputTyp

What does the "will" of the people have anything to do with the Constitution? If the people had it their way gay marriage would still be illegal.. see California Prop 8



The Supreme Court could get a lot more undemocratic




Leah Litman is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School. She represents multiple DACA recipients in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a case before the Supreme Court.

Despite the significant power it wields, the Supreme Court is among the federal government’s most undemocratic institutions. Its justices are appointed for life terms, and selected and confirmed by presidents and the Senate — which themselves do not necessarily reflect the will of the public.

For this reason, academics often characterize the court as “counter-majoritarian,” meaning that it has the power to stand against the majority of the public sentiment in setting policy. But as counter-majoritarian as the Supreme Court is by design, it could get even worse. This term, the court will review cases pertaining to weighty topics ranging from LGBTQ rights to protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. By the end of next summer, we will have a glimpse into just how undemocratic the new conservative majority on the court is willing to be.

The lifetime terms were put into place so that the judges would not be beholden to anyone, and so could be independent and not make decisions based on politics.

So, obviously, politicizing it and its members is a bastardization of this. Also, it has led to many times when people thought a judge was a partisan, and then did not rule or opine in line with that partisanship. So the idea still holds some weight.

 

[22lcidw]

Jesus Christ and this opinion piece is coming from a law professor?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rt-could-get-lot-more-undemocratic/?outputTyp

What does the "will" of the people have anything to do with the Constitution? If the people had it their way gay marriage would still be illegal.. see California Prop 8



The Supreme Court could get a lot more undemocratic




Leah Litman is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School. She represents multiple DACA recipients in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a case before the Supreme Court.

Despite the significant power it wields, the Supreme Court is among the federal government’s most undemocratic institutions. Its justices are appointed for life terms, and selected and confirmed by presidents and the Senate — which themselves do not necessarily reflect the will of the public.

For this reason, academics often characterize the court as “counter-majoritarian,” meaning that it has the power to stand against the majority of the public sentiment in setting policy. But as counter-majoritarian as the Supreme Court is by design, it could get even worse. This term, the court will review cases pertaining to weighty topics ranging from LGBTQ rights to protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. By the end of next summer, we will have a glimpse into just how undemocratic the new conservative majority on the court is willing to be.

Yes, it stands against the rule of the mob, and for the rule of law. It need not reflect "the will of the people", but must weigh matters only before the Constitution

We are not a pure democracy, where the majority dictates, and never have been. That the mob disagrees with Court rulings does not make the rulings unlawful.

We are supposed to be a Republic. We became a democracy. Many people who vote are not very educated in political ways. They just vote "D" or "R". You don't have to be a genius but you should know about the candidate. When it comes to judges, they have decimated our nation due to extremism. And the extremism is deemd normal now while those who base it on constitutional principles are the outsiders looking in. No wonder only landowners could vote. Maybe being somewhat responsible or showing some of it should be considered today to vote.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I'm all for testing a basic knowledge of America and the Constitution before being permitted to vote.

 

[whitehall]

Let's hope the Supreme Court never gets as undemocratic as it did when FDR appointed a former KKK member who wrote the majority opinion exonerating the administration for incarcerating American citizens without due cause. The same Justice went on to create the modern version of "separation of church and state" that did not exist in the Constitution. Still later a liberal Court found a "right to privacy" that did not exist in the Constitution to justify the murder of the unborn.

 

[Montrovant]

Jesus Christ and this opinion piece is coming from a law professor?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...rt-could-get-lot-more-undemocratic/?outputTyp

What does the "will" of the people have anything to do with the Constitution? If the people had it their way gay marriage would still be illegal.. see California Prop 8



The Supreme Court could get a lot more undemocratic




Leah Litman is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan Law School. She represents multiple DACA recipients in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, a case before the Supreme Court.

Despite the significant power it wields, the Supreme Court is among the federal government’s most undemocratic institutions. Its justices are appointed for life terms, and selected and confirmed by presidents and the Senate — which themselves do not necessarily reflect the will of the public.

For this reason, academics often characterize the court as “counter-majoritarian,” meaning that it has the power to stand against the majority of the public sentiment in setting policy. But as counter-majoritarian as the Supreme Court is by design, it could get even worse. This term, the court will review cases pertaining to weighty topics ranging from LGBTQ rights to protections for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. By the end of next summer, we will have a glimpse into just how undemocratic the new conservative majority on the court is willing to be.

Yes, it stands against the rule of the mob, and for the rule of law. It need not reflect "the will of the people", but must weigh matters only before the Constitution

We are not a pure democracy, where the majority dictates, and never have been. That the mob disagrees with Court rulings does not make the rulings unlawful.

We are supposed to be a Republic. We became a democracy. Many people who vote are not very educated in political ways. They just vote "D" or "R". You don't have to be a genius but you should know about the candidate. When it comes to judges, they have decimated our nation due to extremism. And the extremism is deemd normal now while those who base it on constitutional principles are the outsiders looking in. No wonder only landowners could vote. Maybe being somewhat responsible or showing some of it should be considered today to vote.

A republic and a democracy are not mutually exclusive things.

I do agree that too many people seem to vote based on the party of the candidate rather than actually knowing about the individual candidate.

 

[Ridgerunner]

* WARNING* *WARNING*

bear513 great job on the avatar...

 

[Daryl Hunt]

What we have here is a double-whammy. Leftists tend to ignore parts of the law and constitution that they don't like, and lawyers are trained to take preposterous ideas/arguments, and make them sound reasonable. As a result, one wouldn't look to this person to see any cogent information.

The Supreme Court will not DECIDE WHETHER LG.....Q people are protected under current civil rights legislation. The CONGRESS HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT POINT. You know, CONGRESS, the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE?

THis Leftists Lawyer would prefer a setup where the Supreme Court could make shit up when they don't like what the laws and the Constitution say. And she criticizes them for being unwilling to make up new law.

Because she knows that the Congress, having been subjected to a full-court Press by the gay mafia to make this change in the law HAS DECLINED TO DO SO.

Is there no shame in this crowd?

You would rather have the RW do the same? That knife cuts both ways. Luckily, even Kavanah went through a mini basic Supreme Court Training before he was allowed to open his mouth. You keep seeing the 5 to 4 RW against LW. But that doesn't work. They rule on the Constitution. Not changing the Constitution but to rule on whether something is within the constitution. Grow up, cupcake.

 

[22lcidw]

I'm all for testing a basic knowledge of America and the Constitution before being permitted to vote.

I do not believe we have to go that far. Just being responsible as an individual or having a past of that would be sufficient along with being a citizen.