Fight over Kavanaugh Proves the Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

Ringo84 said:

FireDragon stated it better in a single paragraph than I probably would have in several.

Click to expand...

At one time in my life I was in a place of despair, so I can understand where the motivation is from.

This reminds me of a discussion I had years ago with an atheist here on the forum, when I was more stubborn and though I was a mainline Protestant, I was not at the same mature place I am now. He pointed out to me that my attitude was itself nihilistic, because I was attached to a mode of being in the world that was dead. And he was right.

Like the Col. Sartoris stories of William Faulkner, many Christians are sleeping with a corpse and living out a delusional fantasy. However, it is time to give up on the fantasy of a Christendom and find better ways to follow Jesus. He may lead us through the valley of the shadow of death, but that is not an excuse to believe in a counterfeit Gospel of empty glories. There is no profit in gaining the whole world and losing your own soul.

Uber Genius said:

So that part is obvious.

Did they read and engage the argument from the article remains very much to be seen.

It seems like as Christians affirming life is a straightforward issue, one where we could agree. Yet 7 SC justices created a new federal law in the 1973 Roe v Wade decision.

As justice White described it:

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court."

Limiting this type of judicial activism seems more than prudent.

We are at over 40 million babies aborted as a result of 7 justices affirming a right that is no where in the constitution.

So my hope is that people engage intellectually with the material rather than "Just voting."

Click to expand...

So you assume that the votes from the poll in the OP you've posted are all uneducated, because its not in line with what you think people should be voting for?

To answer the OP yes the Supreme Court has become too powerful but that is the fault of Congress not willing to act to settle contentious issues. The Supreme Court, nine unelected justices were never intended by our Constitutional order to be the venue to settle such issues. What this fight highlights is the fact that a goodly amount of "progressive" gains in the last 60 years are democratically illegitimate. If a court can invent rights by judicial fiat then it can also deny or destroy such rights by the same method. While at the same time we have two elected chambers of congress that are more interested in getting elected than spending the political capital to pass a statute to settle a contentious issue. What amuses me is that the same folks that are in a hysteria about the fate of our "democracy" because of Trump are the same folks that are same folks who are most undemocratic when it comes issues before the SC. Suddenly 9 unelected people are better at deciding issues than 536 elected people because you know, right side of history and stuff.

The other issue is that the Federal Government is far too powerful. Recall that our constitutional order recognizes that we are a collection of 50 states in a federal system of government. If one wants to drive social change, start at the state level by getting the state legislature to pass a statute. That will have far more impact than trying to get a federal statute passed. States should reassert their ability to govern themselves according to our constitutional order. This answer isn't in the poll but it is my vote.

It's arguably not powerful enough. Rulings are handed down, states ignore the rulings, lawsuits are filed, and circuit courts uphold what the states have done, which contradicts what the Supreme Court said.

It is not supposed to even consider the popular opinion. It's job is simply to consider a case and determine if the previous rulings from the lower courts are constitutional. They are not supposed to make laws but have been abused by Congress either making laws that are unconstitutional to placate their electorates or not bother to make necessary laws and leaving the SCOTUS to do their dirty work.

Uber Genius said:

In this op-ed by Heritage Foundation, Kim Holmes lays out the case for reducing judicial power.

Why was having a 5 vs. 4 liberal court so important that the Democrats had to risk using such dangerous tactics to block a conservative majority?

Is the Supreme Court too powerful?

Fight over Kavanaugh Proves the Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

Click to expand...

It has been too powerful and overreaching. The appointment
of Kavanaugh as an originalist should help temper it. That is
why the Democrats waged all-out war against him, to keep
their ability to bypass the legislature in creating new laws.

Ringo84 said:

However, the Court is not quite as powerful as you might think. It does not actually set policy or enforce laws; it merely "calls Constitutional balls and strikes". Expansion of rights to include women, minorities, LGBT etc begin with the people - not with court rulings (which only serve to encase those expansions into law).
Ringo

Click to expand...

Homosexual "rights" did not begin with the people. They
were forced on the people by the courts, including the SC
and they were forced on the government and military by EO.
Until then, no sane person thought of rights based around
who one chooses to have sex with.

Could also say that the court is too powerful when judicial review is combined with the ideai of a living constitution over originalism.

Uber Genius said:

In this op-ed by Heritage Foundation, Kim Holmes lays out the case for reducing judicial power.

Why was having a 5 vs. 4 liberal court so important that the Democrats had to risk using such dangerous tactics to block a conservative majority?

Is the Supreme Court too powerful?

Fight over Kavanaugh Proves the Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

Click to expand...

This is the western journal, not the heritage foundation. (Not a fan of wj)

That said, while Kavanaugh appointment was rough, it doesn't show that the Supreme Court has too much power, what it shows is that our judges are now seen as a partisan means to create/override law when congress doesn't do what those on the left desire..

I'm not a fan of anyone who would seek to remove or lessen the power of that necessary check and balance although I'd like politics and politicians to start doing what's right for America and stop being partisan hacks.

The Court seems to agree with me on most issues = The Court is not too powerful leave it alone.

The Court seems to disagree with me on most issues = The Court is too powerful and has to be reigned in or eliminated

Gigimo said:

The Court seems to agree with me on most issues = The Court is not too powerful leave it alone.

The Court seems to disagree with me on most issues = The Court is too powerful and has to be reigned in or eliminated

Click to expand...

The Court's acting according to partisan ideology is paramount = The Court is too powerful.

An originalist court would not be too powerful. It would be limiting itself to making rules on laws that are already there, rather than becoming a legislature making laws without any checks and balances.

Ringo84 said:

FireDragon stated it better in a single paragraph than I probably would have in several.

I agree with the OP that the Supreme Court is too powerful in the sense that far too many right are subject to the whims of out-of-touch people who sit on the Court for life (who thought that lifetime appointments were a good idea?). If it is true that our rights are endowed by our Creator (whichever creator we happen to believe in), then no court should be able to take those rights away because replacement of a justice tilts the court one way or the other.

However, the Court is not quite as powerful as you might think. It does not actually set policy or enforce laws; it merely "calls Constitutional balls and strikes". Expansion of rights to include women, minorities, LGBT etc begin with the people - not with court rulings (which only serve to encase those expansions into law).

Howard Zinn probably expresses this better than I can: Howard Zinn: Don’t Despair about the Supreme Court
Ringo

Click to expand...

One of the rare times I disagree with Ringo...

I feel the case could be made that The Supreme Court is not powerful enough. How could I make that statement? Simple, I look at the purpose of the Supreme Court.

The Purpose of the Supreme Court is to head the Judicial Branch of Government. The Purpose of the Judicial Branch of Government is to serve as a Check and Balance for the other two parts of government: The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.

Each branch of government has its own unique power. To say that one branch is "too powerful" is to say that the proportion and allocation of total power between the 3 branches is not symmetric.

So how do I make the argument that the SC is not powerful enough? Simple. The frequency by which the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch can employ their respective powers exceeds that of the SC's.

The SC hears under 200 cases a year. Congress passes between 600 and 800 bills per year. The President signs around 200 to 300 Executive Orders per year.

In terms of power, I do feel the SC has the right amount of power. However, given its structure, it is unable to employ that power at the frequency that it needs to. It feels like the other two branches of government can employ their power at a rate that far exceeds the Supreme Court's ability to effectively keep pace. Thus, the SC can't effectively serve as a check and balance which then equates to them not being powerful enough.

that's how I see it.

dgiharris said:

One of the rare times I disagree with Ringo...

I feel the case could be made that The Supreme Court is not powerful enough. How could I make that statement? Simple, I look at the purpose of the Supreme Court.

The Purpose of the Supreme Court is to head the Judicial Branch of Government. The Purpose of the Judicial Branch of Government is to serve as a Check and Balance for the other two parts of government: The Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch.

Each branch of government has its own unique power. To say that one branch is "too powerful" is to say that the proportion and allocation of total power between the 3 branches is not symmetric.

So how do I make the argument that the SC is not powerful enough? Simple. The frequency by which the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch can employ their respective powers exceeds that of the SC's.

The SC hears under 200 cases a year. Congress passes between 600 and 800 bills per year. The President signs around 200 to 300 Executive Orders per year.

In terms of power, I do feel the SC has the right amount of power. However, given its structure, it is unable to employ that power at the frequency that it needs to. It feels like the other two branches of government can employ their power at a rate that far exceeds the Supreme Court's ability to effectively keep pace. Thus, the SC can't effectively serve as a check and balance which then equates to them not being powerful enough.

that's how I see it.

Click to expand...

If the past two years have taught us anything, it's that a lot of our government relies on the honor system. There's nothing in black and white print that says, for example, "a president must not appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year", but we've always assumed that the people who occupy our government are good people with good (or relatively good) motives that will uphold decorum.

When that system falls apart due to bad faith on the part of those who are elected, we get these Constitutional edge cases that we've been seeing where there's technically nothing that says x, but it's never been done and nobody has thought to do it.

If/when we recover from our current crises, one of the first of many things we need to do is to clarify certain parts of the Constitution and the law to prevent someone from simply breaking rules at whim and nobody stopping them except to shrug and say "Well, nobody's done that before".

Circling back to the Supreme Court, one such Constitutional edge case that we have is the fact that there are no ethical guidelines for justices. That's not to say that a justice on the Supreme Court can't be impeached if they are corrupt enough (Abe Fortas, if I'm not mistaken, was removed for questionable financial stuff in the late '60s), but we rely on justices to do the right thing because...well...they're Supreme Court justices and we count on their good judgment.

If the Supreme Court doesn't do its job by maintaining a check on the other two branches, what can be done? That's something we need to fix the next time a majority people are elected to office who believe that government can work.

(Sorry if this doesn't make much sense. I was distracted by a breaking story about bombs being sent to CNN NY)
Ringo

Ringo84 said:

If the past two years have taught us anything, it's that a lot of our government relies on the honor system. There's nothing in black and white print that says, for example, "a president must not appoint a Supreme Court justice in an election year", but we've always assumed that the people who occupy our government are good people with good (or relatively good) motives that will uphold decorum.

When that system falls apart due to bad faith on the part of those who are elected, we get these Constitutional edge cases that we've been seeing where there's technically nothing that says x, but it's never been done and nobody has thought to do it.

If/when we recover from our current crises, one of the first of many things we need to do is to clarify certain parts of the Constitution and the law to prevent someone from simply breaking rules at whim and nobody stopping them except to shrug and say "Well, nobody's done that before".

Circling back to the Supreme Court, one such Constitutional edge case that we have is the fact that there are no ethical guidelines for justices. That's not to say that a justice on the Supreme Court can't be impeached if they are corrupt enough (Abe Fortas, if I'm not mistaken, was removed for questionable financial stuff in the late '60s), but we rely on justices to do the right thing because...well...they're Supreme Court justices and we count on their good judgment.

If the Supreme Court doesn't do its job by maintaining a check on the other two branches, what can be done? That's something we need to fix the next time a majority people are elected to office who believe that government can work.

(Sorry if this doesn't make much sense. I was distracted by a breaking story about bombs being sent to CNN NY)
Ringo

Click to expand...

You hit upon something that is simultaneously both the genius and glaring flaw in our system.

our system more or less requires the people at the very top to have morals and ethics and integrity. There is definitely a bit of the "honor system" in play.

THe reason this is genius is because it is impossible to spell out the exact terms of behavior, decorum, protocol etc. Our system and the various branches of government need a certain amount of flexibility to optimally perform their duties.

However, the flaw is that our system is extremely vulnerable to manipulation and corruption if we manage to elect people with little or no integrity.

The problem as I see it, is that there is no feasible way to create a system that is corruption or manipulation proof without a staggering level of bureaucracy... and we are seeing that now. The attempt to prevent the problems our system has results in so much bureaucracy that efficiency and effectiveness goes way way down...

In the end, I don't care how perfect of a system of government we establish, if you put garbage in you will get garbage out...

The whole Federal Government is too powerful as said before, there's nothing in the Federal Constitution about national healthcare or global militarism imposed on the States and the People. Then there's deciding by the Federal Supreme Court nationally what's Constitutional to impose broadly ideological and political beliefs. Originally the Constitution was to limit the Federal Government's authority and power, having many checks and balances by separation of powers not only including the branches but levels of government.

States no longer have representation in the Senate to check the interests of the Federal Government as a whole. Each State has it's own government and constitution which could be protested, elected, and amended by it's people. But it's a State by State approach which for many is too slow and not far reaching enough compared to doing it once top-down nationally. So most issues that affect the lives of us all is concentrated at a single level of Government trying to govern nationally as a Federation of States hundreds of millions of people. Many of who having opposing interests and different ideas about what it means to be American, we aren't much a people being one people. The more diverse the interests and ideas, the less we'll see ourselves as such and continue to further divide and conquer for our way of life.

My opinion is the only sustainable solution is to decentralize and localize much as possible into the hands of communities and people themselves. Starting with the Federal Government returning issues to the state level, having fifty governments representative of people nearer in location and way of life to govern themselves. Then the same from the state to local level and from there to the people. The idea is actual democracy having freedom and rights by those who live where they're governed and have sufficient representation.

Uber Genius said:

In this op-ed by Heritage Foundation, Kim Holmes lays out the case for reducing judicial power.

Why was having a 5 vs. 4 liberal court so important that the Democrats had to risk using such dangerous tactics to block a conservative majority?

Is the Supreme Court too powerful?

Fight over Kavanaugh Proves the Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

Click to expand...

Quite the contrary, I believe that the Supreme Court isn't powerful enough at times since both parties want to control it.

Uber Genius said:

In this op-ed by Heritage Foundation, Kim Holmes lays out the case for reducing judicial power.

Why was having a 5 vs. 4 liberal court so important that the Democrats had to risk using such dangerous tactics to block a conservative majority?

Is the Supreme Court too powerful?

Fight over Kavanaugh Proves the Supreme Court Has Become Too Powerful

Click to expand...

What dangerous tactics? A woman came forward saying he attempted to rape her.

It does not need its ability to interpret law reduced because a woman with a credible character came forward and prevented a rubber stamp.