I disagree. Social norms can change in either direction. For example, American society use to think that educating children was optional. We now recognize a general requirement to educate children.
Just to be clear, though, the court has not ruled that to be required.
In terms of practical implementation you are correct. I was talking about the philosophy behind creating a branch of government that is not directly answerable to the people so as to guarantee that popular initiatives that violate basic rights of an unpopular group can be voided.
Should the court uphold Obamacare because the public likes it? Of course not. That doesn’t mean it should not take public opinion into account- and it always has and always will. Some issues can only be addressed by taking the standards of the community into account (like substantive unconscionability).
Only when they agree with you.
I don’t want to get off on a sidetrack and I’ll admit I’m not particularly familiar with the laws on this subject. But are you saying that if I had a kid and I decided not to send my child to school and also decided not to do any home schooling, that would be allowed?
There are two issues:
States are not required by the constitution to provide public education. They all do, but it has not been established that it’s a requirement.
How you educate your child is a state matter, not a federal one.
But politicians are NOT doing that in several cases. The general consensus of a fair amount of the population think that marijuana should be legalized for medical use, and even for recreational use as it represents an overwhelming number of people in the jails and an amazing amount of money going for enforcement that could go elsewhere as well as a taxable income for the government and provide jobs. [not trying to turn this into a discussion about pot, just pointing out where the government is ignoring the population]
It may be persuasive however it is assuming that the jackass elected has a lick of common sense, or if they are effectively a shill for big business.
That can actually go too far, I am a believer in the old style where if youhad brains, you tracked to university, if not you tracked to trades. Kids no are being taught they are all special little snowflakes that are to go to a university and get a high paying job sitting at a desk, nobody wants to be a plumber, mechanic or dig ditches.
These words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
“100% of Republicans vote Republican!”
One of the most unique resources this country has is a Supreme Court that is so respected that it can overturn a law passed by Congress and signed by the President. Few other countries entrust this power to their high court, and virtually none have a Court that is well-respected enough to successfully exercise it.
But the Court hasn’t always been sufficiently respected to do so. Andrew Jackson evicted the Cherokee despite a Supreme Court ruling. It earned this legitimacy by paying careful attention to never getting too far ahead of public opinion, and never doing anything too wildly controversial.
So some consideration of where the public stands on an issue is necessary to keep the Court from discrediting itself. That’s different from deciding an issue based on majority opinion, but it’s also not the naive view that one can separate judicial power from political power. One cannot. You still need an Eisenhower to send in the proverbial 101st Airborne to enforce your decisions.
I don’t, because it amounts to taking the democracy out of the republic. The only reason your own convictions are relevant is that the people who voted for you trusted them. You are essentially a machine–a convenience due to the fact that it is impractical for everyone to vote on everything. It’s a conceit to allow democracy to work at a larger scale, not an excuse to go against what your constituency wants.
The idea of voting for a candidate is that you believe their convictions line up with your own, so you don’t have to worry about whether they will vote the way you want on a bill. If they vote against what everyone wants, that means that trust was misplaced, and is thus the reason that person can be voted out. (I personally wish they could all also be recalled if the decision is egregiously bad, even if it doesn’t break the law.)
For example, there is no way Congress is doing their job if they pass either of the antipiracy bills, seeing as the majority of people are against it as granting overly broad power to certain businesses and threatening the neutrality of the Internet. It doesn’t matter if their convictions are so anti-piracy that it overrides the freedom concerns.
The only principles that can override are those set in the Constitution, and even that has a method of changing them if necessary.
And that is one place where they are doing a very poor job. The word representative means that you are representing our opinion. Leading is not representing.
I didn’t say it was a specific constitutional requirement. Pretty much the opposite. I gave it as an example of something where there is a public consensus in support of an idea even if no explicit constitutional requirement for it exists.
The problem is that the Supreme Court has become more like a de facto third legislative body. A party in power appoints members to the court so they can control legislation during the years when the party is out of power in the House and Senate.
I think this perception will erode the credibility of the court. The public will see it as just another political body.
I disagree. I think we’re supposed to choose representatives who we believe are more capable than ourselves. And if we believe that, we should be willing to trust their judgement above our own.
I may choose what doctor I wish to have. But once I’ve chosen him, it would be foolish of me to argue with his diagnosis. The reason I chose him is because I thought he knew more about medicine than I did so I should defer to his knowledge.
Same thing with any other professional: a lawyer, a plumber, an architect, a car mechanic. You hire the expert and then you listen to what he tells you.
That’s backwards. The whole point of representative democracy (at least as practiced in the US) is that legislators are not experts. Like a jury, they bring a layman’s understanding; otherwise they’d be Plato’s philosopher-kings. Experts belong in the executive branch.
Lawyers, plumbers, architects and so on are selected on their qualifications. Politicians are selected on their positions, and to a lesser extent on their qualifications.
I disagree. Congress is not a jury. If Congress was supposed to be filled with average citizens, then we’d select its membership by lot rather than election.
That debate between Congress as representative of the people and Congress as representatives for the people goes back to the founding. There is no “supposed to” correct answer; there is only philosophical debate about which is better.
And as to whether SCOTUS is seen as a de facto third legislative body, this is correct at the margins. But it is still *much *more respected than the Presidency or Congress. And I don’t know what the statistics say about people’s precise views, but my guess is that a majority see the Court as making decisions based on some combination of the law and political prejudice, rather than either alone. That seems like a low bar, but it is a bar that most judicial institutions in the world do not meet.
People think he did, but he didn’t. The law under which the Cherokee were removed was the Indian Removal Act (which gave the President the right to make districts west of the Mississippi and then sign treaties with tribes granting them that land in exchange for their land east of the Mississippi), which was never found unconstitutional. The case you’re thinking of was Worcester v Georgia, which found a Georgia law that said that white people couldn’t be on Indian territory without the permission of the governor to be unconstitutional. Two white missionaries had been arrested for being in Cherokee land and had been arrested by Georgia, and then appealed their convictions. That was the ruling that the state of Georgia (not the federal government) originally disobeyed (although the new governor of Georgia pardoned the missionaries).
A due correction of half-remembered history. Though I think the point still stands that it wasn’t really until the mid-20th century that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down a law and expect that command to be duly enforced regardless of the political consequences.