Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?

[jotathought]

We know Lastamender believes the Supreme Court enforces laws:

"No they did not. They enforce laws not make them." from the OP link (Post #1)

The United States Supreme Court:

Interprets the constitution, reviews lower court decisions, provides final judgement, ensures checks and balances, provides a final decision of outcomes and interprets federal law. They either upheld court challenges, decline to decide (leaving the decision with a lower court) or challenge and change rulings (i.e. Roe v. Wade).

It's not rocket science .. recommend you get a basic Government and Economics book, which isn't taught in modern day school systems effectively, and brush up on the basic functions of the three branches.

​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Look everyone, it's the evil dastardly Taliban conservative Supreme Court on trial again.

View attachment 996695

not sure where this comes from.

You're only trolling. How can we prove that? Link to what you're supposedly responding to that Dante (moi), posted? Go ahead. Try and link to something.

reading and comprehension fail 101: what is your post referring to?

falling into the "weird" brigade

noun: non sequitur; plural noun: non sequiturs; noun: nonsequitur; plural noun: nonsequiturs

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
   "his weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs"

 

[jotathought]

So you too believe the SCOTUS enforces law?

and again, Dante did not ask a question you are claiming he did. If We are in error, please quote it.

I believe your Alzheimer's is kicking in .. you've continued to reference me as Dante, and I don't even know who that is.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The United States Supreme Court:

Interprets the constitution, reviews lower court decisions, provides final judgement, ensures checks and balances, provides a final decision of outcomes and interprets federal law. They either upheld court challenges, decline to decide (leaving the decision with a lower court) or challenge and change rulings (i.e. Roe v. Wade).

It's not rocket science .. recommend you get a basic Government and Economics book, which isn't taught in modern day school systems effectively, and brush up on the basic functions of the three branches.

You have chosen to ignore: "What question are you addressing? One Dante asked or one your mind is telling you is there?"

btw, We're working on your old comments to, to try and understand what Americans believe. You are an American, no? Attended school in America/USA?

What are you referring to that Dante posted?


noun: non sequitur; plural noun: non sequiturs; noun: nonsequitur; plural noun: nonsequiturs

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
   "his weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe your Alzheimer's is kicking in .. you've continued to reference me as Dante, and I don't even know who that is.

So when we posted Dante (moi) (to VOTTO), you could not grasp that?

There are so few posts before that, I am puzzled how you could've missed that if you are indeed really reading what you're supposedly responding to.

 

[Votto]

So when we posted Dante (moi) (to VOTTO), you could not grasp that?

There are so few posts before that, I am puzzled how you could've missed that if you are indeed really reading what you're supposedly responding to.

This thread really should be moved to the humor section

Hysterical!!

 

[jotathought]

You have chosen to ignore: "What question are you addressing? One Dante asked or one your mind is telling you is there?"

btw, We're working on your old comments to, to try and understand what Americans believe. You are an American, no? Attended school in America/USA?

What are you referring to that Dante posted?


noun: non sequitur; plural noun: non sequiturs; noun: nonsequitur; plural noun: nonsequiturs

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.
   "his weird mixed metaphors and non sequiturs"

You're the OP, so I addressed your questions in the originating post. Seems you don't understand the basic functions of the judicial branch of government.

 

[jotathought]

So when we posted Dante (moi) (to VOTTO), you could not grasp that?

There are so few posts before that, I am puzzled how you could've missed that if you are indeed really reading what you're supposedly responding to.

You're the OP dumbfuck, and you asked questions about basic government functions, with established precedent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You're the OP dumbfuck, and you asked questions about basic government functions, with established precedent.

Nope.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?

And in this area of interest: This pops up. I remember the "debate" well.

Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?

www.usmessageboard.com

Stumbled upon this post and followed it back. It's a spat between two what I am going to assume, Americans who have been educated in American schools. Did they go on to higher education? Who knows. Would it, should it matter?


What I'm interested in is seeing people on the left or the right, at any given time somehow taking arguments of the other side to suit an argument. And I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?

What if both parties committed to protecting and preserving America’s founding principles, values, tradition and history?

Pennsylvania ruled mail in voting was unconstitutional,, that alone are a lot of votes that shouldnt have been counted,, your ignorance is on you not us,, liberals are so ignorant you wonder how they survive past the age of 25 maybe they kind of don't... since: With age comes wisdom. So...

www.usmessageboard.com

Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

Let me put it more simply. 1) When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract? 2) When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a...

www.usmessageboard.com

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.
The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.
The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

Dante jumped in:
My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

other:
Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

Dante:
In the context of their time you may be correct, but you are assuming you know what they would think now about things and a changing world they know nothing about. You do not know how and when and why people will or do change. Jefferson and others changed their own view of things as they aged. Americans, the very people who ratified the Constitution and gave it legitimacy and power changed over time.

You cannot claim to "know" what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.

The above is an example of what is in the OP:
I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?

What is it people believe, why, do their beliefs square up with reality?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What is an example of rhetorical?


Rhetorical questions: A rhetorical question emphasizes a point by posing a question without expecting an answer. For example, “Do birds fly?” is a rhetorical question implying, “Isn't it obvious?”

Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?

 

[Foxfyre]

And in this area of interest: This pops up. I remember the "debate" well.

Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

I think some are arguing something other than social contract here. Let's review the OP once again, what the topic is, and let's focus on that okay?

www.usmessageboard.com

Debate Now - Social Contract and Validity of Law and Government

Let me put it more simply. 1) When a President changes, via executive order, changes or refuses to enforce a law that Congress passed and he signed into law, is that a violation of social contract? 2) When Congress votes itself benefits that are not authorized via the Constitution, is that a...

www.usmessageboard.com

They would have strongly objected to the government dictating that people had to use a certain kind of candle or lantern for lighting.
The argument is not what the law is. Or what SCOTUS rules.
The argument is what is and what is not social contract, what violates social contract, and what the people should do when that occurs, if anything. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs here.

Dante jumped in:
My opinion is that we could not know. Probability versus possibility. It's possible one could now, but is is highly improbable we do know

other:
Well I am just arrogant to think that I read the founding documents they left for us and am right in that they would have disapproved of any dictate from the central government even suggesting how people must live their lives.

Dante:
In the context of their time you may be correct, but you are assuming you know what they would think now about things and a changing world they know nothing about. You do not know how and when and why people will or do change. Jefferson and others changed their own view of things as they aged. Americans, the very people who ratified the Constitution and gave it legitimacy and power changed over time.

You cannot claim to "know" what anyone from the past would believe or think if they were living today.

The above is an example of what is in the OP:
I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?

What is it people believe, why, do their beliefs square up with reality?

The Court was established to arbitrate disagreements between parties as to what the law is and/or is not. The Supreme Court was to be the final arbitrator of such disagreements.

No court at any level, including the Supreme Court, is given authority to make or change the existing law.

At the federal level, the people's elected representatives are the ONLY Constitutional authority given to make law that materially affects the people. Not the President. Not bureaucrats. Not the courts.

 

[jotathought]

So you can't link to what you are claiming? Okay. You're jut trolling too, like Votto and Liability.

I am not going to educate you on what a middle school or high school student should understand. If you are having issues with understanding basic government functions, I suggest you research and analyze the background and purpose of the three branches of government.

Trolling not necessary -- just highlighting your lack of knowledge on the purpose of the judicial branch of government. Want a School House Rock video to educate you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not going to educate you on what a middle school or high school student should understand. If you are having issues with understanding basic government functions, I suggest you research and analyze the background and purpose of the three branches of government.

Trolling not necessary -- just highlighting your lack of knowledge on the purpose of the judicial branch of government. Want a School House Rock video to educate you?

again, you can't link to what you are claiming? Okay. You're just trolling

 

[Rambunctious]

They interpret the constitution as they see it...

 

[jotathought]

View attachment 996724

again, you can't link to what you are claiming? Okay. You're just trolling

Why do I need to educate a grandpa on how basic functions of government work? Don't you not know how to use Google or YouTube, Grandpa?

Here is what my 1st-grade daughter used to watch Grandpa.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Court was established to arbitrate disagreements between parties as to what the law is and/or is not. The Supreme Court was to be the final arbitrator of such disagreements.

No court at any level, including the Supreme Court, is given authority to make or change the existing law.

At the federal level, the people's elected representatives are the ONLY Constitutional authority given to make law that materially affects the people. Not the President. Not bureaucrats. Not the courts.

Not sure why you brought in bureaucrats. When you say "not the President"I think of this: "Article I, Section 7 says that a bill becomes a “law” once it successfully runs the bicameralism-and-presentment gauntlet; it does not make its status as “law” contingent on whether the statute comports with the judiciary’s interpretation of the Constitution." Presentment. The President's role in making law.

Your post has me thinking of the courts' role in the legal system. Later I want to look at the idea stated, that the Courts "enforce" the law.

“writ-of-erasure fallacy”

"And nothing in the supremacy clause suggests that a statute that the courts find unconstitutional ceases to exist as “law.” Many have noted that Article VI defines the “supreme Law of the Land” to include “this Constitution” and “the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof.”72 But even if one assumes that the “made in pursuance thereof” caveat requires compliance with the Constitution as construed by the federal judiciary,73 that means that Article VI merely withholds the status of supreme law from statutes that the judiciary finds unconstitutional. It does not indicate or suggest that these federal statutes no longer qualify as “Laws of the United States.”74

Another portion of the supremacy clause directs “the Judges in every State” to follow “supreme” federal law over “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary.”75 But this is nothing more than a rule of priority for courts when resolving conflicts between different sources of law.76 The state statutes that contradict “supreme” federal law continue to exist as “laws,” even as they go unenforced, and they would become enforceable if federal law were amended or reinterpreted to remove the conflict.

It is instructive to compare the language of the federal Constitution with state constitutions that explicitly empower their judiciaries to pronounce statutes “void.” The Georgia Constitution, for example, provides that “Legislative acts in violation of this Constitution, or the Constitution of the United States, are void, and the Judiciary shall so declare them.”77 The Georgia Supreme Court therefore regards judicial pronouncements of unconstitutionality as a formal revocation of the underlying statute — to the point that it refuses to give effect to statutes that purport to amend a law that the state judiciary has pronounced unconstitutional.78 A “void” statute cannot be amended because it is a legal nullity, even when the amending statute would have cured the constitutional defects.79

The federal Constitution contains no language of this sort..."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/URLs_Cited/OT2017/16-476/16-476-3.pdf

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They interpret the constitution as they see it...

In context they have something to back up what they see. Their arguments and decisions have to meet certain bars, thresholds, etc. Even then, they can be overruled later - judicial review of judicial decisions. Precedents.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

What usually I see is people arguing without understanding what arguments they are using. I mean arguments they've gotten from a soundbite, or a talking point put forth by partisans, or misreporting by media that are trained for headlines vs content.

Interesting article:

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times, including striking down legal segregation and reversing Roe​

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times, including striking down legal segregation and reversing Roe

The justices who decided to overturn the abortion rights precedent of Roe v. Wade explained their reasoning, and signaled other precedents could be reversed as well.

theconversation.com

It is a central principle of law: Courts, including the Supreme Court, are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But on rare occasions, Supreme Court justices conclude that one of the court’s past constitutional precedents has to go...

For years the court had been building up a theory of precedent reversal that would justify overturning Roe, among other precedents it did not like, and the draft opinion leaked in early 2022 foreshadowed this decision.

The justices who voted to overrule the Roe precedent provided the reasoning behind their decision to reverse a longstanding ruling and declare abortion rights are not protected by the U.S. Constitution. Their explanations also open up the possibility of more reversals of precedent in the future.

Why precedent?​

Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent. First is the idea of equity or justice, under which “like cases should be decided alike.” ...

Don’t let yourself be misled. Understand issues with help from experts​

In addition, precedent promotes judicial efficiency: Courts do not have to decide from scratch every time. They can look at similar cases from the past and base their reasoning on those decisions.

Finally, following precedent promotes predictability in the law and protects people who have come to rely on past decisions as a guide for their behavior.

Reversing precedent is unusual​

The Supreme Court rarely overturns its past decisions or precedents.

In my (David Schultz) book, “Constitutional Precedent in Supreme Court Reasoning,” I point out that from 1789 to 2020, there were 25,544 Supreme Court opinions and judgments after oral arguments. The court has reversed its own constitutional precedents only 145 times – barely 0.5%.

The court’s historic periods are often characterized by who led it as chief justice. From 1953 until 2020, under the successive leadership of Chief Justices Earl Warren, Warren Burger, William Rehnquist and now John Roberts, the court overturned constitutional precedent 32, 32, 30 and 15 times, respectively. That is well under 1% of decisions handled during each period in the court’s history.

When is precedent overturned?​

For most of its history, the court changed its mind only when it thought past precedent was unworkable or no longer viable, perhaps eroded by its subsequent opinions or by changing social conditions. In some cases, reversal happened when the court simply thought it got it wrong in the past.

Not all precedents are equal...

Beginning with the Rehnquist court, justices became more willing to reject precedents they thought were badly reasoned, simply wrong or inconsistent with their own sense of the constitutional framers’ intentions...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does the United States Supreme Court Make Laws, Enforce Laws -- Do Americans even know?​

What I'm interested in is seeing people on the left or the right, at any given time somehow taking arguments of the other side to suit an argument. And I am interested in just what Americans believe about the Supreme Court and how it functions, what it's role is (not looking at can they link to the constitution, as linking does not equate to understanding). What is it people believe?