I…wait…what?
That’s your definition? Well…shit…I see what’s wrong here.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution says that the executive and legislative powers of the Federal government are held by the Supreme Court.
What is your response to this? I can only presume it would be, “okay, since the Supreme Court says that, it must be so.”
Because a preference for Federal over State law doesn’t always lead to more rights. In the Dred Scott decision the SCOTUS said blacks are property and they can never be citizens regardless of what state governments say.
Most liberals tend to support the idea that the SCOTUS ought have “absolute” power because the trend for the last thirty years has been a SCOTUS which makes decisions roughly in line with the mainstream liberal agenda. The problem is these same liberals have no frame of reference. It was the SCOTUS in Plessy v. Ferguson which essentially stamped its approval on Jim Crow laws.
The problem is if you believe the SCOTUS has absolute power then you open up a horrifying can of worms.
Heh. Do you know how many members of the current Supreme Court are Democratic appointees? The court has been led by conservatives for 22 of the last 30 years. You’re thinking of the Warren Court, which hasn’t been around for some time now. And even then you’ve gotten it pretty wrong. No one is arguing for “absolute power,” whatever you think that means.
The argument you’re trying to make is about substantive due process specifically, and living constitutionalism more generally. And while it relates to some of what the ACLU does, it doesn’t relate to the majority of it. Scalia, believe it or not, is actually quite good on a lot of ACLU issues. There is no stronger defender of the rights of criminal defendants than Scalia, for example.
And if you are sufficiently horrified, you can close that can with a constitutional amendment, available to the people several ways.
So absolute power resides in the people, not the Supreme Court.
Yes.
This is entirely true. For the record there are actually few issues I have with the SCOTUS and its decisions pretty much over the course of my lifetime. The only real decision I disagreed with was Roe, but I feel that Planned Parenthood v. Casey modified Roe in a manner that corrected many of my issues with Roe itself.
When I say that the SCOTUS has been friendly to liberal causes, you shouldn’t take that to mean I’m talking strictly about Democrat v. Republican issues. As an institution the SCOTUS is both very conservative but also capable of the most profound liberalism of any of the three branches.
It is highly conservative in that the SCOTUS is relatively resistant to change–even when political makeup of the court changes history has shown that the SCOTUS is reluctant to reverse prior decisions–even decisions made by politically opposite courts.
It is highly liberal in that the SCOTUS can cause rapid change in the law, the most rapid change of any branch, really. Any major legislative or constitutional change effected by the legislature or the executive take lots of talking, back and forth between both branches and within the legislature. In the case of a constitutional amendment we’re talking about a lot of debate across the country. A SCOTUS decision can be made quite quickly and with no real public debate.
I’m not “trying” to make any such argument. In the future I’ll trust that you won’t attempt to define my arguments for me when what I have said is plain for anyone to read, not needing reinterpretation by you.
If it is believed, as Diogenes believes, that the constitution says “whatever the Supreme Court says it does” that is in effect, a form of absolute power for one branch of government. Let me expand on this, since obviously you seemed to completely misinterpret what I was saying and then attempted to rephrase my original position as something I’m entirely uninterested in debating.
The constitution is the ultimate framework for our society’s government. There are three branches because that is what the constitution says there will be. The executive power is vested in the President because the constitution says it is. The legislative power is vested in the Congress because the constitution says it is. The President controls the military because the constitution says he/she does. Amendments are passed through the amendment process we have because the constitution says they are.
What happens if the SCOTUS says that the constitution no longer says those things? Diogenes has quite clearly said that the constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it does. The only limit the SCOTUS would have in essentially “saying” that Articles I and II actually give legislative and executive powers to the SCOTUS is, of course, the SCOTUS can only rule on cases in front of it. But a SCOTUS desirous of giving itself such powers could easily find a case to hear (they certainly have a lot of cases to choose from that get sent their way) in which they could make such a determination.
This doesn’t come up because most people familiar with Supreme Court justices view the idea as ludicrous, and absurd. I think in general, because of the fact that justices have typically been very experienced jurists of immense skill, overall we’ve had a very good crop of people in the SCOTUS over its history.
I’m actually not terribly interested in the ACLU debate. As an answer to the OP’s question as a “righty” I actually have no real issue with the ACLU. I do think they have political bias, but I think the cases they litigate generally are important cases. While I disagree with devoting resources to getting rid of Ten Commandment images (not because I necessarily disagree with such actions, but because I tend to think people are being a bit ridiculous on such issues), I do think it’s important that someone is out there continually making sure that we don’t have the state violating the establishment clause. A lot of ACLU cases I think have been very important in protecting citizens from the arm of government most likely to abuse citizens–the police (I say this as someone who typically comes down on the side of the police in “bash the cops” threads on this forum.)
My real issue is this idea that the Constitution can be defined in whatever way the SCOTUS wishes. If someone actually buys into that idea, they are saying the SCOTUS effectively has absolute power.
In reality the SCOTUS doesn’t have absolute power. The members of the bench don’t appear to desire absolute power, and there are of course limits to how the SCOTUS can interpret the constitution–but I was specifically responding to a poster who seemed to be saying the SCOTUS has no limits on its power, that it can say the Constitution says whatever it wishes, which by extension would include saying it says things exactly opposite what the text actually says.
What is a constitutional amendment?
Well, it’s a part of the constitution.
Who gets to decide what the constitution means? Well, the SCOTUS. So, even if you pass an amendment the SCOTUS could simply reinterpret it to mean something exactly opposite of what the plain text of the Amendment says. Again, in a world where the constitution means whatever the SCOTUS says it does, where it has no other meaning, where it is wholly defined by the SCOTUS and no one else–the amendment process is no form of check on their power whatsoever. An amendment isn’t immune to “interpretation” by the SCOTUS anymore than the rest of the document is.
You do realize that SCOTUS is guided by the rule of law (precedent, etc.) and logic, don’t you? You seem to think that they can issue an edict, like a king or dictator. At the very least, a case has to come up so they have something to interpret.
Theoretically, SCOTUS could use a case as a flimsy excuse to issue an edict. Theoretically. Do you really think that a majority of the appointees, coming from different backgrounds, but all swearing to uphold the law, would go along with this? And do you think that Congress or the people would put up with it without initiating impeachment proceedings?
Did you read my posts? 
I’ve already addressed exactly everything you have asked.
oh, you haven’t really been following this thread, have you.
Bricker made some good points above.
I’d just like to point out that most people on these boards support the Second Amendment to some degree, Diogenes included, but don’t necessarily sign on to the NRA’s expansive interpretation of it.
And there is no reason why they should. We have to decide these things ourselves - both individually and as a people through the legal process.
So there is no reason why I should automatically sign on to the ACLU’s particular interpretation of the Bill of Rights. They have just one say of many in the debate. And opposing a particular point of theirs does not make their opponents “anti-Bill of Rights” necessarily, any more than opposing an NRA proposal would automatically make someone “anti-gun”.
That last point shouldn’t have to be made, but sadly it does.
Well, that similar program in Boston seems to have at least two characteristics that the DC program lacks:
[ol]
[li]The request to search is apparently initiated by the police[/li][li]There is no immunity if drugs or guns are found[/li][/ol]
I can absolutely see the point for the ACLU to encourage Boston residents to put up signs.
Are you a lawyer? 
Look, if you are, you’ve got to know that a lot of people have a deep aversion to lawyers. They see them as greedy, parasitic, cruel, cunning, legalistic. Bloodsucking, conspiratorial – in a word: Shylock, Shakespeare’s great arch-villain. Well, that’s just one site with a viewpoint of lawyers.
And I don’t criticize the ACLU for their initial opposition.
I criticize them for the CURRENT, continuing opposition to the plan after their earlier objections were taken into account and the plan modified.
I think the point he’s flirting with is illustrated by Lochner v. New York. SDP wielded by the “conservative” viewpoint isn’t all that palatable, is it?
Very valid point, which is why I chuckle when I read any of the liberal screeds slamming Scalia. He is relentlessly principled; he has a method of analysis, based on the text, and wherever it takes him – that’s where he ends up.
In Kyllo, for example, I think there’s wisdom in permitting the infrared monitoring, because I think it’s a minimal invasion of privacy and can easily identify growing operations. But Scalia’s point was simple: using a device not in general public use to explore details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. His allies on that opinion included Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer – hardly a conservative dream team. And his opponents on the dissent included Rehnquist.
(By the way – you asked elsewhere if I’ve read A Matter of Interpretation. Not only have I read it, but Justice Scalia was kind enough to autograph my copy. 
)
You seemed to be suggesting that the Shakespeare quote was somehow relevant to your point of view. I’m telling you that it’s not as enlightening as you seem to think it is. Unless you are literally saying that you believe that all lawyers should be killed. In that case, it would be edifying, but not in a manner that’s to your benefit.
I’m asking you to explain your “school of thought” and how it applies to the discussion here. Reference to general societal views on lawyers isn’t helpful.
Have you read that link, by the way? It seems to suggest that cultural hatred of lawyers is closely related to cultural anti-Semitism. Is that the “school of thought” that you’re signing on to?
The author of the site seems to know this, but I’m not sure whether you do: Shylock wasn’t a lawyer. He was a moneylender.
Don’t talk about facts, the facts are biased.
Those characteristics seem to be the case in the DC program as well. From this Washington Post article about the program:
In both the Boston and DC programs, the individual won’t be charged because of simple possession of the gun. The ACLU’s concern was that the person agreeing to the search could open themself up to other charges. If I let the police into my home, and they find that the gun in my home was linked to a murder, for instance, they now have evidence tying me to that crime.
Yes, that was true when that article was written. In response to concerns, however, the program was changed, as I hinted in my posts above.
Here is a more recent article that addresses the changes:
The continued opposition to the modified plan is perfectly rational. From the Post story in my earlier citation set:
Given the existence of an option that is less intrusive and equally effective, the more intrusive method clearly cannot be justified.