jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (19 posts)

Do you think that SCOTUS decisions should require more than a simple majority to

  1. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
    bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years ago

    Do you think that SCOTUS decisions should require more than a simple majority to decide a case.

    With a 5-4 decision, 4 SC justices are disregarded while a single vote decides the case. The decision becomes the law of the land, but does that even come close to resolving the issues underlying the case.

    The Supreme Case always has the option to not hear a case, and that may be better than coming up with a contest simple majority opinion.

    Shouldn't cases of this magnitude and importance to the country and the people be more decisive than one vote? A simple majority is closer to a coin flip than a well reasoned and intelligent answer?



    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/12674804_f260.jpg

  2. jackclee lm profile image81
    jackclee lmposted 2 years ago

    It is true many decisions have been settled by a 5-4 decision. It is good to remember that the decision of the Supreme Court is not the final. It must stand the test of time. Some court decisions have been reversed years later. I have no problem with the 5-4 decisions because our country is close to evenly divided on many issues. It just reflects the state of our Republic. The one thing that I think will improve the situation is to have term limits on Supreme Court justices. There is no reason for that to be a lifetime appointment. The latest death of Justice Scalia is one example where a term limit on Justices will reduce these type of conflicts.
    How about a 20 year appointment or age 70 which ever comes first.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Jack
      The basis of my question was to show how SC decisions don't resolve the issues before the court. Roe v Wade is an example of such a decision. Life time appts were to put the justices out of the reach of undue influence and politics.

    2. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      A mandatory age seems like maybe a good idea. But I go 80 nowadays.
      Decisions made and then altered does not sound bad. It sounds,,, well sound.

    3. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Eric

      Measure twice cut once sounds better to me.  smile

    4. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Nice job if you can get it but what you want is concrete in a fluctuating time, as always. Today NSA eavesdropping tomorrow mind melds, Today the bad guys have AKs tomorrow briefcase nukes. Fast and furious requires slow and steady.

    5. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Eric
      You are describing a case where the SC should abstain from hearing those kinds of cases. A SC decision should resolve the issue, not just throw dirt in the air to hide the problem.
      Solve the problem with the decision, dn add another problem

    6. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Don't try to solve a whole human condition problem, be specific until the next case comes along.

    7. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Eric
      Sorry, I have no idea what you mean?

    8. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Each decision is limited in scope and applied very specifically. SCOTUS is not there to set policy but to make particular rulings in particular cases and give precedence to follow. You seem to want them to solve societal ills in a broad stroke.

    9. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Eric
      If a SC decision doesn't solve a problem, what good is it.
      Neither the SC or the gov can solve social issues, but the SC decides legal issue, and if it dn resolve those issue, what good is it?

    10. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      finality and certainty are the call of every good civil defense lawyer and insurance lawyer. So they can calculate liability. A real trial attorney wants that vagueness so that he can fit his facts. Is there art in law or is it mechanics?

    11. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Eric
      I don't know how to answer you as it is not relevant to the question posted.

  3. Ericdierker profile image59
    Ericdierkerposted 2 years ago

    Respectfully I think the the way it is now is a good design. We have a court that was specifically designed with 9 judges for very good reason. Our country has never been a super majority country. We are a nation split down the middle between ideologies. The best way to describe that is Liberal and conservative. Our court has a wonderful way of balancing itself between liberal and conservative. I admit that that does seem like dumb luck but when you have dumb luck working for 240 years - most people would stick with that.
    I understand that your premise is that SCOTUS does not work. I suggest it does better than any other judicial system. 50+ state like jurisdictions under one umbrella of the constitution is monumental. A system with lasting continuity within the premise of freedom as the cornerstone. With few exceptions I feel like I am free and SCOTUS is what has guaranteed that freedom.
    I guess the bottom line here is that I think it is a fundamentally good system and you think it is fundamentally flawed. And a constitutional amendment to change it to your idea has a chance in hell.

    1. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Eric
      Actually the SC is not well designed, in fact under FDR there were 15 jurists. The founders left the details to the congress for the SC.
      We are a Democratic REPUBLIC and majority is the difference.
      I dn have enough characters left!!!

    2. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      No FDR tried to but was unsuccessful. Details to congress is correct. So changing things would "take an act of congress". And they would have to repeal existing law.

    3. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Given the supermajority requirement mandated by the Constitution to pass Constitutional amendments, a simple majority requirement by the Supreme Court, to uphold a suspect law, defies the spirit of the Constitution.

    4. Ericdierker profile image59
      Ericdierkerposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Good point. You are asserting that what it takes to change the constitution should be what it takes to interpret it. I would say that congress can't get it together enough for that, why would a court be any different? Congress can't agree.

    5. bradmasterOCcal profile image32
      bradmasterOCcalposted 2 years agoin reply to this

      Eric
      Yes, and Congress and the Judiciary have different jobs.
      The voters can only change the congress.
      It takes a super majority to pass an amendment, and why shouldn't that also apply to SC decisions?
      Decisions that dn resolve the issue, and not gd

 
working