Why do Americans tolerate legislation from Judges to stand?

[Hikarifuru]

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.

It determined that prohibiting them was unconstitutional.... because that's the job of the SCOTUS.

 

[brewmama]

Assuring equal rights for people is being tyrannical?

The ingenious tactic of turning perversion into something that is a "right", when it is no such thing, has clouded the conversation to the point of incomprehensibility. Yes, it is tyrannical when a small cabal of unelected activists force an unwanted agenda down the throat of the country.

 

[ecco]

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.

Incorrect in every regard.

How does society decide?

It begins with a Constitution - the basic legal framework of the nation.

Article I (Article 1 - Legislative)
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Article II (Article 2 - Executive)
Section 1
1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Article III (Article 3 - Judicial)
Section 1
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court
Section 2
1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,
Article V (Article 5 - Mode of Amendment)
The Congress, whenever Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,...
​

Briefly, Congress makes laws, the Court decides whether the laws follow the Constitution.

Everything cannot be written into a Constitution, it is a framework. When Congress makes laws, some people will disagree with the laws. These people will go to the Courts to decide if the laws follow the explicit and implicit guidelines of the Constitution.

From time to time, people find things in the Constitution that should be changed or laws so important that they should be made part of the Constitution. Article V provides for this.

You don't like some of SCOTUS's decisions, neither do I. But, I suspect, they are different decisions.

 

[Archivist]

Yes, it is tyrannical when a small cabal of unelected activists force an unwanted agenda down the throat of the country.

And exactly what "unwante agenda" has the Supreme Court forced down the throat of the country?

 

[bhsmte]

The ingenious tactic of turning perversion into something that is a "right", when it is no such thing, has clouded the conversation to the point of incomprehensibility. Yes, it is tyrannical when a small cabal of unelected activists force an unwanted agenda down the throat of the country.

You call it a perversion and that is your opinion.

Does allowing others to engage in what you personally call a perversion, somehow change how you choose to live your own life?

 

[bhsmte]

The ingenious tactic of turning perversion into something that is a "right", when it is no such thing, has clouded the conversation to the point of incomprehensibility. Yes, it is tyrannical when a small cabal of unelected activists force an unwanted agenda down the throat of the country.

In the sake of accuracy, the majority of Americans (over 60%) are for same sex marriage, so your claim of unwanted agenda, is not accurate.

 

[trunks2k]

In the sake of accuracy, the majority of Americans (over 60%) are for same sex marriage, so your claim of unwanted agenda, is not accurate.

It's also interesting to not that the public approval of same sex marriage at the time it was made legal by the SCotUS was much higher than public approval of interracial marriages when anti-miscegenation laws were struck down. Interracial marriages didn't get majority approval until, IIRC, the 80s whereas approval for same sex marriage has exceeded 50% for the past several years.

 

[Open Heart]

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 care, but honestly, what is there to be done short of anarchy? Autumnleaf I notice you didn't say what you thought could be done.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

The ingenious tactic of turning perversion into something that is a "right", when it is no such thing, has clouded the conversation to the point of incomprehensibility. Yes, it is tyrannical when a small cabal of unelected activists force an unwanted agenda down the throat of the country.

Oh.... I had no idea brewmama was the one who determines what rights people have in the United States and what doesn't qualify as a right.

 

[Wayte]

The entire purpose of the SCOTUS is to enforce the constitution even when popular vote or legislation would go against it. To prevent the "tyranny of the majority." Trying to claim the SCOTUS is acting to upend the will of the majority, regardless of that claims accuracy, is pointless because that's literally their job. To keep the American people from being able to vote away the rights of their fellow Americans.

 

[ecco]

Yes, it is tyrannical when a small cabal of unelected activists force an unwanted agenda down the throat of the country.

Do you mean the appointment of G. W. Bush as president?

 

[muichimotsu]

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.

The people don't have all the rights, especially not in some sense of complete self governance, because otherwise you're advocating what amounts to libertarian anarchism, where there's next to no overarching structure at all to manage various things in an ideally non-intrusive manner.Society deciding all things, as you're saying with little qualification otherwise as to what ought to be decided by what amounts to elected representatives, creates a rule by pure majority, which isn't acceptable if we understand that all citizens have basic rights that should not and will not be infringed upon by the whims of a mob.

Marriage is one of those things and the states, while permitted to allow or limit particular things in relation to marriage, they need a sufficient justification and with preventing gay couples from getting civil marriage licenses, they had none that passed muster. Sort of like, you know, the right to vote, however implicit it technically is in the constitution, only noted explicitly in the 15th amendment.

 

[brewmama]

In the sake of accuracy, the majority of Americans (over 60%) are for same sex marriage, so your claim of unwanted agenda, is not accurate.

Except that it was voted down in many states, including California.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Except that it was voted down in many states, including California.

And when states deprive their citizens of basic civil rights the decisions of the states can be over-turned. c.f. Loving v Virginia, 1967

-CryptoLutheran

 

[muichimotsu]

The ingenious tactic of turning perversion into something that is a "right", when it is no such thing, has clouded the conversation to the point of incomprehensibility. Yes, it is tyrannical when a small cabal of unelected activists force an unwanted agenda down the throat of the country.

Perversion is not something unequivocally determined or relevant in regards to civil rights or policy: it's more a judgment of norms and the like, which is immaterial in terms of whether it should be considered illegal or a threat in some sense. Sure, people do weird things and enjoy bizarre practices, but many are benign in nature.

The country isn't having it forced down their throat when many are apparently too busy following pop culture to even care about political issues in the slightest. It's more like it's being snuck past them if you want to be accurate in this screed against decisions that you disagree with on a moral level, rather than an objective or legal perspective on things.

Sure, the SC didn't originally have this power, but they had hardly any arguably power in a sense beforehand, applying to various types of litigation, but only regards them in that respect. Judicial review at least grants judges something more to do on the federal level than something that likely comes up as much as a blood moon or an eclipse these days. Not to mention the discretionary jurisdiction, so even in cases of potential judicial review, they can find the case void for some varied reason.

 

[muichimotsu]

Except that it was voted down in many states, including California.

Majority is a relative thing when voter turnout varies as much as the patterns of clouds in the sky above my house.

 

[South Bound]

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?

Americans don't know what the law is. Most people think the states are administrative districts of the federal government and subordinate to the federal government. They don't know that states are sovereign entities or that judges can be impeached.

They don't know that one of the roles of the county sheriff is to defend their liberties from federal encroachment, and they've sure have no idea what the "lesser magistrate doctrine" is.

Just the other day on CARM, a troll was lecturing me about history and didn't know who Samuel Adams was.

Schools stopped teaching the Constitution and history years ago so that people wouldn't know the source of our liberty and that they wouldn't know that the government is slowly tightening the noose.

As Irv Homer used to say, "If you don't know your rights, you don't have any".

 

[bhsmte]

Americans don't know what the law is. Most people think the states are administrative districts of the federal government and subordinate to the federal government. They don't know that states are sovereign entities or that judges can be impeached.

They don't know that one of the roles of the county sheriff is to defend their liberties from federal encroachment, and they've sure have no idea what the "lesser magistrate doctrine" is.

Just the other day on CARM, a troll was lecturing me about history and didn't know who Samuel Adams was.

Schools stopped teaching the Constitution and history years ago so that people wouldn't know the source of our liberty and that they wouldn't know that the government is slowly tightening the noose.

As Irv Homer used to say, "If you don't know your rights, you don't have any".

Schools stopped teaching the constitution?

Where do you live? Where I am from, students must pass a test on the constitution to move on in school.

 

[Dave-W]

Schools stopped teaching the constitution?

A lot of them have under past conservative administrations.

Nixon considered the constitution and bill of rights way too liberal to be taught.

 

[bhsmte]

A lot of them have under past conservative administrations.

Nixon considered the constitution and bill of rights way too liberal to be taught.

Nixon is considered our most liberal president since FDR, by most presidential scholars.

States typically determine, school requirements, not the feds. In my state, a student must pass a constitutional test, to move on to the next grade.