For sometime I have heard how the Supreme Court is destroying the Constitution and America. The heat has really turned up on this lately, since Judge Moore and the Texas sodomy case. The basic conservative opinion seems to be the Supreme Court is a liberal institution that wants to end all traditional values by making up “rights”. Where does this view come from? I can’t think of a case the Court decided on anything other than US law and the Constitution. The Court may not use a strict reading of the Constitution, but how does this equal making up the law? I can’t find anything in the Constitution that says how the Court has to interpret the Constitution. So can some conservatives that feel the Court is making up the law, please cite some cases and your reasoning why you believe the Court was not using the Constitution correctly and was making up the law.
Here is an article form today that illustrates what I am talking about.
World Net Daily and Ann Coulter are not the best source of news for this kind of thing. WND is an ultra-conservative news source with an extreme bias. And Ann coulter just a bitch.
Heck, you can find similar panicky rhetoric dating back to Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and America and the Constitution are still around.
Is there some reason why you’ve started three threads on this subject so far this week?
Sandra Day O’Connor and International Law
Constitutionality of the Supreme Court looking at foreign or international decisions?
I forget to put an “is”
The Supreme Court is quixotic, to say the least… Remember that they ruled, in WWII, that the internment of American citizens was okay, based solely on those citizens’ ancestry! The constitution is absolutely clear about “taintment of blood,” but the SC ignored it…
So, to begin with, I think we can all agree that the Supreme Court has the capability of ignoring the constitution…
But to destroy it? No… Not without a lot of help from the other two branches of government, and not without the support of a big chunk of the citizenry… And if things ever get that bad, no system of government imaginable could save us…
Besides, what specific reforms would you want? An amendment limiting the kinds of decisions the court can make? That runs the risk of making them so powerless that they could not serve as a check on a runaway Executive or a corrupt Congress…
Trinopus
Honestly, find a reputable source first. Someone other than Ms. Coulter, in other words.
I don’t think you’ll find any serious-minded conservatives who buy into the notion of the court “destroying the Constitution.” That’s just overheated rhetoric served up by TV talking heads to sell their crappy books and by vulnerable congressmen looking to scare people into voting for them.
However, there is a legitimate and reasonable concern over the approach the Supreme Court has taken in interpreting the Constitution. In the following thread, I explained the rationale behind strict constructionism and opposition to “legislating from the bench”: Rights? What’s a Right?.
If you’re interested in the topic, I suggest you give it a read.
Only Dewey would cite himself for authority. Those self-esteem tapes worked out all right, huh, Baylor Boy?
Come on. All he did was say “I’ve addresse the OP before in this thread. Rather than repeat myself, just go here.” Every link is not a “cite”.
I don’t know about you, but here on the West Coast, it’s time to start drinking!
How about this: pass a constitutional amendment giving Congress the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings by replacing common law with statute law. Make it require a very large supermajority (greater than 3/4 of both houses), plus a Presidential signature.
[quote]
I don’t think you’ll find any serious-minded conservatives who buy into the notion of the court “destroying the Constitution.” That’s just overheated rhetoric served up by TV talking heads to sell their crappy books and by vulnerable congressmen looking to scare people into voting for them.
[quote]
Well Fox News does have the top ratings of cable news channels and these books sell lots of copies. I don’t agree with the view that the Court is destroying the Constitution, but there have to a lot of people who believe this if the views are selling so well.
What John Mace said. Rather than reproduce a whole bunch of lengthy posts, I just linked to an earlier thread. Tell me, 'luce, do you have anything, y’know, useful to add?
So what? I specifically mentioned “serious-minded” conservatives. Your average Fox News viewer could no more articulate the reasoned bases underpinning strict constructionism than could your typical WTO protestor articulate a coherent economic thought.
Horrible idea!
Congress already has the power to overturn Supreme Court rulings not founded on constitutiona principles by a simple majority vote in each hosue. It’s called passing a statute.
And they have the right to overturn Supreme Court decisions elucidating constitutional principles by a two-thirds majority in each house when concurred in by 38 state legislatures, and have used this four times in our nation’s history: 1794, 1866-69, 1909, and 1971.
What, I can’t bust your chops a little on New Years Eve, homey? Look here, minty, come see what New Yawk City has gone and done to the boy!
Well, suppose it aint all that bad, hell, look what it did to Kinky Friedman, I mean, lordy!
Hey, you in the suit! Got any change?
Dewey doesn’t need his chops busted, 'luce. He’s spending New Year’s Eve without any Shiner Bock. Why, that’s enough to turn anyone mean and conservative.
This would only be more perfect if you concluded it with “I wanna buy a grande espresso.”
PS minty: interview over Christmas in Houson, decent chance I may be returning to the land of Shiner at some point. Keep your fingers crossed. (Been doing in-house work in the interim in New Jersey; the drive is killing me.)