sort by best latest
This is sort of like the forces that were in Super Storm Sandy. Two strong forces working together to increase the strength of the storm.
Politically, pres campaign, one strong force, and then Replacing Scalia, another strong force.
You are confusing typing with grammar.
"Everyone of the SCOTUS" Glass house!
Actually it was the Congress that setup the details of SCOTUS, thanks to the founders.
I haven't found any SCOTUS decisions of any value to the country or the people.
Go to law school so you can appreciate jurisprudence,
I did and I have a JD, what about you.
Very interesting comment coming from a JD "I haven't found any SCOTUS decisions of any value to the country or the people." How about Miranda?
Over the years the Miranda decision was watered down, as was the probable cause used to get search warrants, and stop people.
The worst thing about the SC is the simple majority opinion. It dismisses the learned opinions of 4 jurists.
Is there a better solution that you know of? Dissenting opinions may not be precedent but they can be persuasive given the right circumstance. I get your dissatisfaction. But do you have an alternative? Miranda watered down means it was good.
Miranda watered down gave suspects less protection.
In my hubs, I have advocated that the simple majority of SC decisions sb replaced with a 6-3 or even better 7-2 which is more in line with passing amendments. SC decisions sb made cautiously,
I merely took issue with this statement: "I haven't found any SCOTUS decisions of any value to the country or the people." And we agree Miranda was a good decision -- now as you say watered down. Brown?
Miranda dn resolve the issue of protecting the 5th am, right to remain silent, as evidenced by the watering down. MIranda was actually one of four decisions tied together for the SC decision, and MIranda literally dn survive.
Your question limited the time line and Miranda and Brown are outside of it. I am working on a decision that would meet your criterion. I am damned hard pressed -- good point.
That was very nice of you.
I would extend the ? to the last one hundred years.
I consider decisions growing the size and scope of the feds political, just to let you know. It is more against the guidelines of the founders.
As a scholar I was required to do my two hours of reading to honor Scalia here are four
D.C. v. Heller (2008)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992)
Printz v. United States (1997)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
It took less than 5 minutes to read these, and they were in one link on my search.
Anyway, these are interesting cases but we could live without them. I like Scalia but these cases shouldn't even be heard by the SC.
Go ahead let us get down to basics. Pick one of those cases. Argue why it should not be in front of the SC. I will argue against you. Supreme Court is not made up of gross generalizations but hard stuff on a case by case basis. Sweeping change?