Supreme Court, And The Constitution

A lot of Americans know these concepts of the constitution:

1. Separation of Church and State
2. Abortion rights
3. Affirmative Action
4. Search Warrents

The list goes on and on.

In all of these issues the practical implication of the constitution was not the words of the constitution but the interpretation that was infered from them. Many of these constitutional cases are determined with a 5-4 majority. This means that if one justiced had changed his oppinion we'd have the exact opposite law without any of the words changing.

The question:

"How much judicial restraint do you think judges should excercise when interpreting the constitution? Also, what rulings in specific do you disagree with and make a logical argument why?"

I personally have a bunch but I'd like to see what others have to say...

PLEASE DO NOT TROLL THIS INTO AN ABORTION OR GAY RIGHTS THREAD. Just make a logical-legal case for your argument as best as you can.

Lawyers and law students have a hard enough time debating the above in a civil fashion.

Whatever the good intentions of the OP, I'm here before flaming trolls wreck this thread.

If anyone was interested as to my opinion, which I doubt. I'm fine with 5-4 decisions and activist judges because in the end law making power resides with the local/ state legislatures and our congress.
Much as judges can have their say and interpret things as they will our law makers can come right back and pass new laws...

True, and I understand it will be hard for this thread to not devolve into trolling.

I suppose my point is that the doctrine of Stare decisis really ties the hands of US law makers. The opinions of one judge become the foundation for new laws rather than the constitution itself. Eventually you're not even interupting the constitution anymore but just some judges opinion. How far away do you think that takes us from the original meaning?

The Law should be revised and the wordings adjusted properly. Then basically make it that they MUST follow supreme court rulings and any changes must be done by and only by the highest court.


Having people refer back to special rulings and interpretations of other courts is just getting out of hand honestly and diluting the law at every corner.

I'm not a law student, I'm a political science/law and society dual major and I want to go into law school. I've taken a ton of constitutional law classes but this ***has always bothered me. I just don't see how its "fair" to let judges who are elected and politiacally biased creat near permanent rulings on the constitution.

Im no law major, I took some classes in Uni and its Canadian law.

The only reasoning I get from this is Judges want to evaluate each ruling "Case by Case". That would work if that ruling only worked on that specific case but the problem arises when a lawyer can refer back to that ruling in a new cases even it doesn't relate at all to his clients crime and he will just state


"Well this person was given only xxx judgment / or set free via this judge"

Too many loop holes and gaps in laws

gonna need some troll spay for this one

Posting in thread so I don't forget to check back later.

I find this stuff absolutely fascinating.

I'm hoping to go to law school after I get my master's.

It's not set in stone because the decision can always be reversed by another case.

If the people don't like the decisions the current judges make, they can vote for the other political side and stack the court in a different way.

Here is our first troll <3. Welcome friend.

yes I still have a issue with court costs

it would be amazing if it was possible to reduce the amount of time to get a conviction/ decision resolved without taking years to do so or having the wording (50x specialist show up)


Why cant it be simple.

Proof

Defense

verify persons health / sanity

Decision


no bs in between

That's not really the case. The surpreme court almost never overturns it own rulings except for in very extreme circumstances. If you want to challenge a ruling you have to challenge it from a different angle in order to create winning precedent and gradually chip away at the original ruling. We're talking about 10 cases sometimes to overturn one presecedent as in the case of Brown v Board of ed. Had Earl Warren not decided to end segregation because it he felt it was morally wrong instead of constitutionally wrong then Segregation might still be in place today. Very few judges are as activist as Earl Warren.

Also, Supreme Court justices serve for life so if Obama gets to nominate 3 or 4 liberal judges what do you think happens for the next 20 years? He gets 4 judges to vote liberal for the next 20 years that can't be removed. The same goes for conservative appointments. You might argue that judges arent "legislating from the bench" but in all cases where there are 5-4 votes it's generally because it is a political issue.

I don't believe that we should have to build up so much prescedent to over turn some judge, who quite frankly knows jack ***about the original intentions of the creators of the constitution. I don't give a ***what Renquest thought, I dont' care what Roberts, or Warren, or Brown thought. They shouldn't have the power to create precedent because then the issue becomes not what the writers of the constitution meant but what that respective judge ment. Who the *** is that judge?

*lurks while waiting for the conversations of people suing for stupid things to start back up* Nah I'm kidding. :p



Should use more common logic. >_>; Anyone remember the story of the robber who broke through a families window, cutting himself on the glass, and then sued the family and won? Um... Hel-lo!?

The laws need to be interpreted by judges because they are constantly evolving and with the changes come many "what if" situations that the laws do not specifically cover or are hazy about. Also they are an important part of the checks and balances system. If congress decides to pass a series of laws that are unconstitutional those laws can be put into judicial review and be struck down.
The supreme court justices are put there by your vote, indirectly. Based on who the body elects as an official, their choice of a justice is then a reflection of the bodies choice much in a similar way of the electoral vote. Even then, once a justice is chosen by the president their nomination can only be approved by the senate, another group that has been elected to represent the body. This is why voting is important. You need to vote for the person that can represent YOU.

It's all about cost when it comes to speedy trials. Judges in my home county (very small and poor county) get paid 500 bucks a day. District Attorneys make slightly more than 100k/yr and ADAs get 70-80ish. They also have to pay a court clerk and a bunch of other people that are involved in the process. It's sad to say but we can only afford to have superior court one week a month. In the mean time we have accused rapists posting bail and waiting a year or more til their trial can be heard.

Though it shouldn't be an easy process in my opinion. I'd rather waste time than convict a bunch of innocent people willy-nilly.


The supreme court may not be directly elected by the people but they also do not make the majority of court decisions. They select very few cases to hear each year and they are usually the biggest political issues because of it. They don't choose those cases because they have a bone to pick, they choose them because they are hot issues that many Americans want to debate about.

It's also not about their political views most of the time. They often go down to the most minute details to figure out what the writers of the constitution meant when they wrote it. The word "militia" in the second amendment is always a huge deal when deciding cases on gun rights. It may not seem like much but they did a lot of research to find out what exactly it meant when used different ways back in the day to make a decision on second amendment rights. The decision came down to something about different type of sentence clauses or something like that.

They don't just give their own opinion and cast their decision, they have very in-depth arguments with lots of evidence to support their decision. It's much much more than politics (as opposed to congress).

goodluck watching all 10+ videos :P


this is his court case number NO. 05-cv-345 from NY

1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. 1st amendment, bill of rights, duh.

2. I'll pretty much leave this alone short of right of life needs established at a certain point in a developing child.

3. This ***is just stupid, it's a good gesture, but failed long term and somewhat backfires, needs to go just on GP.

4. One it's warrants, two it's covered in the 4th and 5th amendments

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


now on another note and more interesting to me is

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

and this

Article. VI.

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

now these parts of the constitution being stated, laws of the United States (made by congress, no?)> laws of states, that being said under what grounds is VA Attorney General suing the Federal Government for a state law being conflicted by the new federal law.

LOL. I didn't ask where they are in the constitution. I asked what supreme court rulings you disagree with. Wow, I think you got whooshed bro.

the thing is you said they weren't worded in the constitution, which those that i posted are, so those points are null. as to the court system itself, it needs an overhaul, and so does congress. unfortunately to do that we'd have to create amendments, we the people are ***.

Oh, I missunderstood you.

1. Separation of church of state isn't in the constitution. Separation of church state was established via precendents and is now the understood underlying principle of the establishment clause, not the actual wording.

2. This was a 14th amendment issue.

3. This was also a 14th amendment issue.

4. Search warrants are ONLY in the 4th amendment. You can argue that the due process clause in both the 14th and 5th amendments to an extent.


But yea I think we do need a overhaul as well.

reread the 2nd to last sentence on the 5th amendment. also the first sentence of the first amendment is "seperation of church and state" just in different wording, regardless of any court ruling, it's more of jut a duh. another thing i find to be hilarious is people bitching because their reps aren't pushing for what they want, sorry buddy but it's their job to do what's in their constituants best interest, not what the constituants think hence the entire point of a representative democracy in the first place, the average person typically doesn't know what's best for them. now then comes the question in itself do we need a ruling class or not? a lot of people have become used to being taken care of (in a sense not just benefit collectors) can we really survive if people were to take responsibility upon themselves, a lot of people i think would suffer and some wouldn't. just an idea. their interests are.