Do you think that the SCOTUS has become to political over the last several decad

1. 44

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   Do you think that the SCOTUS has become to political over the last several decades?
   
   

   replyreport
2. 49

   Ericdierkerposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 44

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   2. 49

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Go to law school so you can appreciate jurisprudence,

      replyreport
   3. 44

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Eric
      I did and I have a JD, what about you.

      replyreport
   4. 49

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   5. 44

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   6. 49

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   7. 44

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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,

      replyreport
   8. 49

      Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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?

      replyreport
   9. 44

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      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.

      replyreport
   10. 49

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Mea Culpa.
       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.

       replyreport
   11. 44

       bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Erik
       
       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.

       replyreport
   12. 49

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       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)

       replyreport
   13. 44

       bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       Eric
       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.

       replyreport
   14. 49

       Ericdierkerposted 7 years agoin reply to this

       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?

       replyreport
3. 87

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
4. 67

   breakfastpopposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport
   1. 44

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks POP
      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.

      replyreport
5. 78

   CatherineGiordanoposted 7 years ago

   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.

   replyreport