Do you think that the SCOTUS has become to political over the last several decades?
Dang I just hate that when a question has a mistake of grammar -- the word would be "too". But we muddle on with the less than stellar writers.
SCOTUS can not be too political. Our constitution is alive and reflects our lives and politics is a huge part of an aware person's life. They are not concerned with what you watch on the news or in your bedroom at night.
SCOTUS must adapt and adjust and read and interpret with caution and integrity.
Everyone of the SCOTUS is superb and our system of putting them there is awesome. Wow_-_ there absolutly no way no how a better justice system in the world. (some of the laws suck but that is the legislative branch within their bounds)
Boyo boyo they better stay politically inclined it is why we have a balanced court.
Dang that Scalia dying so young. God give him good things I pray. But we are rock solid perfect in our court. Wow they are awesome.
With all that said i really detest some of their rulings.
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?
When the Supreme Court moved beyond interpreting the law narrowly and inventing rights like a right to abortion, voting Obamacare is both a tax and not a tax as necessary to uphold the law, and inventing same sex marriage, it became as political as the legislative branch.
The answer is a resounding "yes." The passing of Justice Scalia is a great loss. He fought hard and fair, and his great legal mind will be sorely missed. With his passing the move towards more political decisions will accelerate.
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.
Absolutely. That became clear after Bush v. Gore. You can see it because there is so often a 5-4 split based on the political leanings of the justices.
by Rob Hampton 6 years ago
Anyone else experiencing a massive drop in traffic over the last several days?I have been steady for months at around 1,000 impressions per day and now everyday it's lower and lower. 900, 800, 700, 600, 500...... I mean like a 100 a day less each day. What's going on?
by Isabella Snow 8 years ago
I don't post in these forums anymore, so most of you won't know who I am, but I've been around a long time. I am not going to get into a debate with *anyone*, this is just an FYI for those of you who are panicked about the latest Google changes. 1. Google did a big change of some sort a couple of...
by Don W 7 years ago
This is a continuation of a conversation from another thread, which morphed into a discussion about political ideology:One of the main lessons we have learned about ideology, a lesson which draws on evidence from throughout history, is that 1) a single ideology is seldom ideal for every condition...
by jaydawg808 3 years ago
Do you feel that the legal smoking age in the United States should be 21 instead of 18?Hawaii will become the first U.S. state to raise the legal smoking age to 21. How do you feel about this?
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|