Biden Creating Commission to Study Expanding the Supreme Court

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
It would certainly change the direction of which laws are upheld or rejected. But it seems that some people want the rules changed to get laws changed.
Courts don’t “change laws” though.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Courts don’t “change laws” though.
semantics

Courts reject laws and require that agencies change them or have them be made null and void.

Activist courts have certainly defined what laws mean, and have changed the very direction of our legal system. A clear example is the Court's decision is Brown vs. Board Of Education.

A constitutional "right to privacy" was essentially invented by an activist court.

I agree with these two decisions, but that doesn't mean the meaning of laws and even the Constitution hasn't been changed by the courts.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Aldebaran
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Brown v. Board of Education was the Court overturning Plessy v. Ferguson and the doctrine of “separate but equal”, that Plessy espoused.
Short of it being activist, it repudiated the activism of the Court of 1896 (that codified social norms into legal ones).
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Brown v. Board of Education was the Court overturning Plessy v. Ferguson and the doctrine of “separate but equal”, that Plessy espoused.
Short of it being activist, it repudiated the activism of the Court of 1896 (that codified social norms into legal ones).

As a liberal for over 60 years, I will be more clear.

I do NOT believe that separate but EQUAL schools violated any constitutional principle. I think it strange to believe that my grandchildren have a constitutional right to have African Americans and Asian in their class at school. And, YES, they do have that right as given to then in 1954.

Plessy, and separate but equal, was indeed overturned. It doesn't follow that it wasn't a reasonably constructed legal doctrine.
=====================
All that being said, SCOTUS did what was necessary and what was already acceptable to the vast majority of Americans. If black schools were on average equal to white schools, it is unlikely that the action would have been taken. Of course, this action was taken against the 300 year history of discrimination and persecution which was not being addressed by the states.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Pommer
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
As a liberal for over 60 years, I will be more clear.

I do NOT believe that separate but EQUAL schools violated any constitutional principle.

SCOTUS unanimously disagreed. They determined that the very existence of government-mandated racial segregation was inherently unequal (and thus, in violation of the 14th Amendment) due to the psychological impact on the students.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
If black schools were on average equal to white schools, it is unlikely that the action would have been taken.
There wouldn’t have been a lawsuit, even, if this was the situation on the ground, there wouldn’t have been a reason to sue the board of Education.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: mark46
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
There wouldn’t have been a lawsuit, even, if this was the situation on the ground, there wouldn’t have been a reason to sue the board of Education.

I agree but others do not. The country listened to the science before changing the law. Marshall argued that blacks in all black schools could NOT receive an equal education, precisely because the school was all black, or almost all black. The schools were horrible, and SCOTUS overturned the 5 appellate cases.

Curiously, many school districts have largely segregated schools today. Absent forced bussing and the abolition of private schools, it will eb difficult to have truly integrated schools. SCOTUS could try to force the hand of the local school districts, but it won't work. Now, the situation is different. States don't prohibit integrated schools as they once did.

Just BTW, do you believe black colleges (almost totally segregated are detrimental to there students, and it is the lack of white students that makes them so?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
There wouldn’t have been a lawsuit, even, if this was the situation on the ground, there wouldn’t have been a reason to sue the board of Education.

Not at that time, but it would've been inevitable -- SCOTUS ruled segregation unConstitutional regardless of whether or not the qualities of the schools were comparable... it would only have been a matter of time before some parent asked "why does my child have to be bussed all the way across town when there's a school just as good right down the block?" and gotten the legal ball rolling with the same end result.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Not at that time, but it would've been inevitable -- SCOTUS ruled segregation unConstitutional regardless of whether or not the qualities of the schools were comparable... it would only have been a matter of time before some parent asked "why does my child have to be bussed all the way across town when there's a school just as good right down the block?" and gotten the legal ball rolling with the same end result.

???
Bussing was a tactic of the courts and governments to send black students to white schools. And, yes, many parents objected. In fact, looking back, leaders of the Democratic Party disagree over this tactic.
 
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
???
Bussing was a tactic of the courts and governments to send black students to white schools. And, yes, many parents objected. In fact, looking back, leaders of the Democratic Party disagree over this tactic.

My bad -- wrong terminology.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
A poll showed 64% of Americans want term limits or age limits for justices.

There is public support for court reform.

I'd support a scenario where SCOTUS justices are appointed from the federal courts, serve on SCOTUS for a set amount of time (either 8 or 12 years; haven't decided yet) and then get rotated back into the federal courts.

I'm on the fence on the subject of term limits -- I don't want them serving consecutive terms, but I can't decide if these justices should be allowed to serve on SCOTUS again after some time back in the lower courts (again, either 8 or 12 years), or if it's strictly one and done.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It's right there in the 4th Amendment.

I disagree.

However, the 4th amendment was indeed interpreted to include more and more from the 1890's though the 60's when in Griswold actually stated that there was an implied right to privacy and barred laws against contraception. And in 1973, this right was expanded to include the right top abortion during the first trimester.

Let's be clear, there was lots of laws for centuries that forbade homosexuality, contraception and abortion.
No right of privacy was put forth to change these laws until the 20th Century. It is clear the various courts expanded the meaning of privacy to sexual matters.

As I have, I approve of this kind of role for SCOTUS. But, please, please understand that this is NOT a strict constructionist view of the Constitution. For justices who favor this type of opinion, the Constitution is a living document, subject to amendment and to change in interpretation.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
No right of privacy was put forth to change these laws until the 20th Century.
Exactly!
And when it was framed for the Court as a Fourth Amendment violation, it acted accordingly and “found” that the Constitution prohibits the power of the state to interfere in private medical issues without at least a “rational basis” for doing so.
 
Upvote 0

mark46

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 29, 2010
20,042
4,720
✟830,515.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Exactly!
And when it was framed for the Court as a Fourth Amendment violation, it acted accordingly and “found” that the Constitution prohibits the power of the state to interfere in private medical issues without at least a “rational basis” for doing so.

Q1) do you believe that anyone before 1900 believed that there was a right to privacy that applied to sodomy, contraception and abortion?

Q2) do you believe that a strict constructionist court would have recognized this interpretation before 2000?

My point is that courts interpreted the Constitution is ways to apply to theses issues. There are at least two views of how SCOTUS should act. The more activist approach encourages considering the consensus of the country, the actions of the state, and lots of other issues when applying the living breathing Constitution to current circumstances.
================
Many (most?) constitutional scholars embrace interpreting the Constitution differently that it might have been in 1800 or 1900, no matter what the founders believed. Are we truly going to accept every word of 1800 when black men were worth 3/4 of white men, and only property owners voted.
================
The other example is that forced segregation (especially in schools) is wrong, and is prohibited by the Constitution. It matter not all to me that the founders certainly took different views.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,964
5,726
✟247,292.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Sounds like a step in the right direction.

In the last few years the Republican party have attempted to make the Supreme Court politically biased.
They have even resorted to stealing one seat via blatantly hypocritical actions (Merrick Garland) and in the process denying the country a Supreme Court justice for almost a year.

If the Republican party are allowed to continue, they will keep politicising everything, keep obstructing everything. Your country and your politics demands collaboration and compromise but the Republican party refuse to act with civility, integrity or honesty.

The current administration would be doing a disservice if they didn't try very hard to come up with a system that will be less politically charged.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,347
10,241
Earth
✟137,487.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
Q1) do you believe that anyone before 1900 believed that there was a right to privacy that applied to sodomy, contraception and abortion?
The great thing about societies is that they’re allowed to change and grow and make mistakes and learn from them and change and grow some more.

Back when churches had more power in our society, they made sure that the social mores were rigidly enforced, the Constitution notwithstanding.

That influence peaked in 1920 with the passage of the Volstead Act (Prohibition, (for the peanut gallery)), after that well intentioned debacle the church largely exited politics for 50 years.
Q2) do you believe that a strict constructionist court would have recognized this interpretation before 2000?
If we’re going by Scalia and his brethren that’d be a “no”.

My point is that courts interpreted the Constitution is ways to apply to theses issues. There are at least two views of how SCOTUS should act. The more activist approach encourages considering the consensus of the country, the actions of the state, and lots of other issues when applying the living breathing Constitution to current circumstances.
================
Many (most?) constitutional scholars embrace interpreting the Constitution differently that it might have been in 1800 or 1900, no matter what the founders believed. Are we truly going to accept every word of 1800 when black men were worth 3/4 of white men, and only property owners voted.
================
The other example is that forced segregation (especially in schools) is wrong, and is prohibited by the Constitution. It matter not all to me that the founders certainly took different views.


Scalia’s whole career on the Court was based on “if it’s not written in the Constitution, don’t expect us to go hunting for it in between the lines”; he’d would have been fine* with abortion and SSM if it got written down in Amendments.

*as an Associate Justice, not politically or personally.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NxNW

Well-Known Member
Nov 30, 2019
4,821
3,503
NW
✟190,591.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I disagree.[.quote]

However, the 4th amendment was indeed interpreted to include more and more from the 1890's though the 60's when in Griswold actually stated that there was an implied right to privacy

The right to be secure in one's person, papers, houses, and effects is pretty clear.
 
Upvote 0