Why do Americans tolerate legislation from Judges to stand?

[Autumnleaf]

From the loss of property rights to abortion the Supreme Court in the US has been doing things the American public disagrees with for at least decades. As a constitutional republic we have a political process where we use legislation to determine what rules and rights we want to have for ourselves. This is and has been subverted by the Supreme Court and Americans refuse to demand elected leaders either ratify these Supreme Court decisions or use legislation to nullify them and censure the court for overstepping its bounds. Do Americans not care or are they ignorant about the options, or both?

 

[sahjimira]

I care but yes I'm ignorant of the options. Truly I wouldn't know where to begin

 

[brinny]

From the loss of property rights to abortion the Supreme Court in the US has been doing things the American public disagrees with for at least decades. As a constitutional republic we have a political process where we use legislation to determine what rules and rights we want to have for ourselves. This is and has been subverted by the Supreme Court and Americans refuse to demand elected leaders either ratify these Supreme Court decisions or use legislation to nullify them and censure the court for overstepping its bounds. Do Americans not care or are they ignorant about the options, or both?

i've wondered the same thing myself

 

[jayem]

Most Americans do care, but they agree with SCOTUS. A majority supports Roe, and the other abortion decisions. There are regional differences of opinion, but on the whole, a majority of the public wants abortion to be legally available.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/11/5-facts-about-abortion/

Pew also found most Americans favor same sex marriage.

http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

This is and has been subverted by the Supreme Court and Americans refuse to demand elected leaders either ratify these Supreme Court decisions or use legislation to nullify them and censure the court for overstepping its bounds.

Not sure what you mean by that. Where does the Constitution allow elected leaders to "ratify" a SCOTUS decision? Congress can impeach a Justice, presumably for "high crimes and misdemeanors," (same grounds as in a Presidential impeachment.) But just because you don't like a decision doesn't cut it. And anyway, in a 5-4 or 7-2 ruling, which Justice will you go after? Everyone who didn't vote your way? Good luck with that.

The only legislation that nullifies a Court ruling is a Constitutional amendment. The reason that recent controversial rulings haven't been seriously challenged is that it's really tough to pass an amendment. And it's even tougher when most of the country agrees with the Court.

 

[heatedmonk]

When SCOTUS struck down Arizona's voter requirements that would have prevented illegals from voting, in essence then by their 'supreme' authority legalizing voter fraud for illegals, criminals, law breakers, foreign trespassers, SCOTUS became the icon of corruption and the judicial branch enemy of American jurisprudence.

After that, they're no longer valid as a body in my opinion. But that means nothing as just my opinion.

Liberty Counsel says that unlawful SCOTUS, my words, "Unlawful SCOTUS", (Corrupt, worthy of impeachment to start afresh SCOTUS), wrote new law in June with their SS marriage decision. I've yet to hear them elaborate on that and would love to hear how that is true.

In the meantime, while it can be incredibly frustrating to witness a corrupt invalid Judicial branch still wearing black as the enemy 9, we turn to the Legislative branch where the GOP sits now in majority after begging for the vote that would allow them to take back America , do something about that other enemy,Obama, and all manner of promises they've yet to fulfill after they received the votes they begged for and that allowed them to be the majority in both houses.
Now that they are that they're doing nothing as that. And that too is frustrating.

As a friend of mine observed, for the Christian it is equally frustrating and yet a glorious opportunity to witness the truth of scripture as we are alive to witness , which rarely happens, America go to Hell right before our eyes and by law.

And when we look outside our borders we see it happening in the world as well.

Amazing really.

From the loss of property rights to abortion the Supreme Court in the US has been doing things the American public disagrees with for at least decades. As a constitutional republic we have a political process where we use legislation to determine what rules and rights we want to have for ourselves. This is and has been subverted by the Supreme Court and Americans refuse to demand elected leaders either ratify these Supreme Court decisions or use legislation to nullify them and censure the court for overstepping its bounds. Do Americans not care or are they ignorant about the options, or both?

 

[Hikarifuru]

From the loss of property rights to abortion the Supreme Court in the US has been doing things the American public disagrees with for at least decades. As a constitutional republic we have a political process where we use legislation to determine what rules and rights we want to have for ourselves. This is and has been subverted by the Supreme Court and Americans refuse to demand elected leaders either ratify these Supreme Court decisions or use legislation to nullify them and censure the court for overstepping its bounds. Do Americans not care or are they ignorant about the options, or both?

Actually that constitutional republic prohibits you from coming together to vote and change things that are hard coded into our constitution. That constitutional republic and the bill of rights serve to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

It doesn't matter what you want, there are things you do not get to vote on or change because we are a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws it only serves to settle disputes between lower courts and ultimately decide whether a law is constitutional or not. They are upholding a standard that serves to protect minorities from the feelings and desires of the majority, aka preventing you from getting votes on certain things. You can probably do whatever you like to yourself, just not to everyone else.

Like the Supreme Court decisions on the Separation of Church and state, they aren't limiting your Christianity in anyway, just keeping you from doing it to everyone to else.

Don't want an abortion?.... well no one makes you have one

 

[brewmama]

Actually that constitutional republic prohibits you from coming together to vote and change things that are hard coded into our constitution. That constitutional republic and the bill of rights serve to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.

It doesn't matter what you want, there are things you do not get to vote on or change because we are a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. The Supreme Court doesn't make laws it only serves to settle disputes between lower courts and ultimately decide whether a law is constitutional or not. They are upholding a standard that serves to protect minorities from the feelings and desires of the majority, aka preventing you from getting votes on certain things. You can probably do whatever you like to yourself, just not to everyone else.

Like the Supreme Court decisions on the Separation of Church and state, they aren't limiting your Christianity in anyway, just keeping you from doing it to everyone to else.

Don't want an abortion?.... well no one makes you have one

Actually no, the bill of rights is specifically to protect citizens from an overreaching government, not minorities or majorities. The Supreme Court has definitely overstepped its bounds by ruling on cultural things not mentioned in the Constitution, and which should be decided by legislation. It's a shame that so many are cowed by everything the courts say, in the past they were not so divinized.

 

[brewmama]

Most Americans do care, but they agree with SCOTUS. A majority supports Roe, and the other abortion decisions. There are regional differences of opinion, but on the whole, a majority of the public wants abortion to be legally available.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/11/5-facts-about-abortion/
.

Not so.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/29/...cans-want-all-or-most-abortions-made-illegal/
"But do those labels on abortion actually mean Americans are pro-abortion? It turns out the answer is no, as Gallup confirms a majority of Americans oppose all or almost all abortions. When asked when abortion should be legal, 55 percent of Americans oppose all abortions or say abortion should only be legal in a “few circumstances,” typically defined as cases such as rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger. Since those cases constitute, at most, 1-2 percent of all abortion cases, Gallup’s numbers confirm 55 percent of Americans oppose 98 percent or more of the 1.1 million abortions that take place annually in the United States.

The poll makes it clear that even 27 percent of those who call themselves “pro-choice” actually take a pro-life position wanting all abortions illegal or abortion legal in only the very rarest cases. Just 9 percent of people who support unlimited abortion wrongly call themselves pro-life."

And even if they did agree with the Court, it would be much better to have states make their own laws on abortion than have an ill-conceived decision forced on the entire country. If Roe and Wade were repealed, states could then do it themselves.

 

[Gene2memE]

As I understand it, the Judiciary is one of three branches of government established by the US constitution. The role of the court is to examine legal issues and apply the principles of the US constitution, along with the previously established body, to it. It also provides a check and balance on the two elected bodies.

The Court's rulings may not be popular with the body politic, but so what? As pointed out in the opening post, the US is a constitutional republic, not an absolute democracy. Merely because something is unpopular, doesn't mean its wrong.

It doesn't matter if these issues are mentioned directly in the US constitution or not. What is important about the constitution are the overarching principles it establishes that guide these decisions.

In the case of abortion, gay marriage, voting rights and others, the Court looked at the legal arguments against them and found them wanting. If you don't like it, let your representatives know, and they can let your elected officials know.

I wonder, if the SCoTUS had ruled against gay marriage, would you be arguing it had overstepped its boundaries?

 

[Archivist]

As I understand it, the Judiciary is one of three branches of government established by the US constitution. The role of the court is to examine legal issues and apply the principles of the US constitution, along with the previously established body, to it. It also provides a check and balance on the two elected bodies.

The power of Judicial Review is not granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution. The Court gave itself that power in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). However, other than some attacks on Judicial authority during the Jefferson administration, Congress never acted to limit the Court's power of Judicial Review.

The Court's actions have sometimes been in line with public oipinion. The recent same-sex marriage decision certainly was supported by public opinion, as was the Roe decision. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the "separate but equal" decision was probably in line with public opinion as well. However the Court has not always taken the popular side: Brown v. Board of Education was probably not in line with piublic opinion when issued, but today who would argue that it was wrongly decided?

 

[bhsmte]

From the loss of property rights to abortion the Supreme Court in the US has been doing things the American public disagrees with for at least decades. As a constitutional republic we have a political process where we use legislation to determine what rules and rights we want to have for ourselves. This is and has been subverted by the Supreme Court and Americans refuse to demand elected leaders either ratify these Supreme Court decisions or use legislation to nullify them and censure the court for overstepping its bounds. Do Americans not care or are they ignorant about the options, or both?

A few things, you need to brush up on the latest in majority opinion of the US population.

Second, no one is stopping legislators from passing whatever laws or legislation they have enough votes to pass.

Lastly, folks who respect the constitution and the rule of law, recognize the supreme court has the last say on legal interpretations. Is everyone going to agree on everyone? Clearly no, but that is what you would expect in a nation filled with people with differing opinions.

 

[brewmama]

I wonder, if the SCoTUS had ruled against gay marriage, would you be arguing it had overstepped its boundaries?

Yes, because they have no business inserting themselves into matters that society should decide for itself. They have become a body usurping the constitutional authority of the people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

 

[brewmama]

A few things, you need to brush up on the latest in majority opinion of the US population.

Second, no one is stopping legislators from passing whatever laws or legislation they have enough votes to pass.

Lastly, folks who respect the constitution and the rule of law, recognize the supreme court has the last say on legal interpretations. Is everyone going to agree on everyone? Clearly no, but that is what you would expect in a nation filled with people with differing opinions.

No, I don't agree. The Supreme Court was never given the authority you say, it took it upon themselves.

"The Supreme Court of the United States spends much, if not most, of its time on a task which is not delegated to the Supreme Court by the Constitution. That task is: Hearing cases wherein the constitutionality of a law or regulation is challenged. The Supreme Court's nine Justices attempt to sort out what is, and what is not constitutional. This process is known as Judicial Review. But the states, in drafting the Constitution, did not delegate such a power to the Supreme Court, or to any branch of the government.

Since the constitution does not give this power to the court, you might wonder how it came to be that the court assumed this responsibility. The answer is that the court just started doing it and no one has put a stop to it. This assumption of power took place first in 1794 when the Supreme Court declared an act of congress to be unconstitutional, but went largely unnoticed until the landmark case of Marbury v Madison in 1803. Marbury is significant less for the issue that it settled (between Marbury and Madison) than for the fact that Chief Justice John Marshall used Marbury to provide a rationale for judicial review. Since then, the idea that the Supreme Court should be the arbiter of constitutionality issues has become so ingrained that most people incorrectly believe that the Constitution granted this power."

http://constitutionality.info/SupremeCourt.html

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, because they have no business inserting themselves into matters that society should decide for itself. They have become a body usurping the constitutional authority of the people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

Would you be ok then, with allowing certain states to not allowing blacks in certain schools, if the people in that state wanted it to be that way?

 

[brewmama]

Would you be ok then, with allowing certain states to not allowing blacks in certain schools, if the people in that state wanted it to be that way?

Since that has been taken care of with legislation I don't see the point of the question.

 

[bhsmte]

Since that has been taken care of with legislation I don't see the point of the question.

But it was taken care of with legislation, that at the time, certain states disagreed with.

Are you ok with federal legislation, that goes against a states desires?

 

[brewmama]

But it was taken care of with legislation, that at the time, certain states disagreed with.

Are you ok with federal legislation, that goes against a states desires?

If you had true states' rights, then they could certainly decide that for themselves. Who knows, perhaps blacks could have their own cities or states. But that's fantasy. Meanwhile, although I don't particularly like federal usurpation of states' rights, it's the world we live in. However the Court has brazenly injected themselves into matters that don't involve them, and have become quite tyrannical.

 

[bhsmte]

If you had true states' rights, then they could certainly decide that for themselves. Who knows, perhaps blacks could have their own cities or states. But that's fantasy. Meanwhile, although I don't particularly like federal usurpation of states' rights, it's the world we live in. However the Court has brazenly injected themselves into matters that don't involve them, and have become quite tyrannical.

Assuring equal rights for people is being tyrannical?

 

[Hikarifuru]

Actually no, the bill of rights is specifically to protect citizens from an overreaching government, not minorities or majorities. The Supreme Court has definitely overstepped its bounds by ruling on cultural things not mentioned in the Constitution, and which should be decided by legislation. It's a shame that so many are cowed by everything the courts say, in the past they were not so divinized.

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine what is and is not constitutional and yes that is the purpose of establishing RIGHTS. To protect minorities etc. If you think you are more qualified than the Supreme Court Justices then go get your own law degree, prove yourself a good lawyer and judge and then challenge them.

 

[jayem]

Not so.

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/05/29/...cans-want-all-or-most-abortions-made-illegal/
"But do those labels on abortion actually mean Americans are pro-abortion? It turns out the answer is no, as Gallup confirms a majority of Americans oppose all or almost all abortions. When asked when abortion should be legal, 55 percent of Americans oppose all abortions or say abortion should only be legal in a “few circumstances,” typically defined as cases such as rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger. Since those cases constitute, at most, 1-2 percent of all abortion cases, Gallup’s numbers confirm 55 percent of Americans oppose 98 percent or more of the 1.1 million abortions that take place annually in the United States.

The poll makes it clear that even 27 percent of those who call themselves “pro-choice” actually take a pro-life position wanting all abortions illegal or abortion legal in only the very rarest cases. Just 9 percent of people who support unlimited abortion wrongly call themselves pro-life."

And even if they did agree with the Court, it would be much better to have states make their own laws on abortion than have an ill-conceived decision forced on the entire country. If Roe and Wade were repealed, states could then do it themselves.

Getting off-topic here. In recent years, there haven't been many referendums on abortion, where the voters actually decide. But in only one state last year, a referendum allowing abortion restriction was approved by voters. That was in in Tenn. (And of course, it's being challenged in court.) But in Colorado, and North Dakota in 2014, voters defeated proposals to declare the unborn were "persons" in their state constitutions. (CO voters also defeated fetal personhood in 2008.) Abortion bans were defeated twice in South Dakota in 2006 and 2008. Fetal personhood was defeated in 2011 in Mississippi. Florida voters in 2012 defeated an amendment to prevent public funding of abortion beyond that required by federal law. In Ohio in 2013 a personhood amendment was proposed, but didn't get enough signatures to appear on the ballot. Voters have approved parental notification laws. But when very tight restrictions, or giving legal personhood to the unborn are on the ballot, they've most always lost. Check the link. Several more measures may be on the ballot in 2016.

http://ballotpedia.org/Abortion_on_the_ballot#tab=By_year