The evolution of SCOTUS

[Votto]

Has the evolution of SCOTUS violated its original intent?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said regarding his concerns that SCOTUS had usurped its Constitutional intent during his life time

Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail Adams, John Adam's wife, regarding Marbury vs. Madison, a case decision that appalled him

"The Constitution......meant that its coordinate branches should be checks and balances on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Jefferson became even more adamant about the potential abuses of SCOTUS later in life as he wrote this to William Jarvis.

"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.......and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

 

[Votto]

This is what both Lincoln and Wilson had to say regarding the power SCOTUS had assumed regarding the Constitution.

On March 4, 1861, during his first inauguration speech, shortly after the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln said:

"I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they many not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes."

Conversely, Woodrow Wilson held this view. Wilson argued:

"The character of the process of constitutional adaptation depends first of all upon the wise or unwise choice of statesmen, but ultimately and chiefly upon the option and purpose of the courts. The chief instrumentality by which the law of the Constitution has been extended to cover the facts of national development has of course been judicial interpretations -- the decisions of the courts. The process of formal amendment of the Constitution was made so difficult by the provisions of the Constitution itself that it has seldom been feasible to use it; and the difficulty of formal amendment has undoubtedly made the courts more liberal, not to say more lax, in their interpretation than they would otherwise have been. The whole business of adaption has been theirs, and they have undertaken it with open minds, sometimes even with boldness and a touch of audacity."

Contrasting the two views, we see Lincoln appalled by the notion of allowing imperfect men the ability to dictate to the rest of the nation the Constitutionality of policy. Conversely, Wilson's view of the judiciary seems to be that they should serve as a perpetual Constitutional convention, without benefit of representation and input from the various states. Not only that, it appears that Wilson is willing to bet the farm that these statesmen within SCOTUS could be of superior character to that of a common man to decide such matters alone

It is worth noting that Lincoln, who insisted on judicial limitations, led the effort to abolish slavery. Conversely, Wilson, who demanded an all-powerful court, enthusiastically supported segregation.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Has the evolution of SCOTUS violated its original intent?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said regarding his concerns that SCOTUS had usurped its Constitutional intent during his life time

Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail Adams, John Adam's wife, regarding Marbury vs. Madison, a case decision that appalled him

"The Constitution......meant that its coordinate branches should be checks and balances on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Jefferson became even more adamant about the potential abuses of SCOTUS later in life as he wrote this to William Jarvis.

"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.......and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

And yet, he threw his support behind the 3 branch system. Go figure.

 

[Votto]

Has the evolution of SCOTUS violated its original intent?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said regarding his concerns that SCOTUS had usurped its Constitutional intent during his life time

Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail Adams, John Adam's wife, regarding Marbury vs. Madison, a case decision that appalled him

"The Constitution......meant that its coordinate branches should be checks and balances on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Jefferson became even more adamant about the potential abuses of SCOTUS later in life as he wrote this to William Jarvis.

"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.......and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

And yet, he threw his support behind the 3 branch system. Go figure.

I'm not so much concerned with who supported what than I am the various ideas each had regarding SCOTUS.

Do we want a perpetual Constitutional convention when it comes to SCOTUS? Was this the intent? Do we look up to these 9 robes in awe, as if they alone could be implicitly trusted with the Constitution?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Has the evolution of SCOTUS violated its original intent?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said regarding his concerns that SCOTUS had usurped its Constitutional intent during his life time

Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail Adams, John Adam's wife, regarding Marbury vs. Madison, a case decision that appalled him

"The Constitution......meant that its coordinate branches should be checks and balances on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Jefferson became even more adamant about the potential abuses of SCOTUS later in life as he wrote this to William Jarvis.

"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.......and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

And yet, he threw his support behind the 3 branch system. Go figure.

I'm not so much concerned with who supported what than I am the various ideas each had regarding SCOTUS.

Do we want a perpetual Constitutional convention when it comes to SCOTUS? Was this the intent? Do we look up to these 9 robes in awe, as if they alone could be implicitly trusted with the Constitution?

Lots of people are trusted with the constitution. The supreme court will never see 99.999...% of cases involving laws written according to our constitution. The system has worked fine so far. Just because you and a bunch of other people are butthurt doesn't mean it's time to toss out the Constitution.

 

[Mr. H.]

So, is Scalia channeling Jefferson when he says this?

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

 

[Mr. H.]

Lots of people are trusted with the constitution. The supreme court will never see 99.999...% of cases involving laws written according to our constitution. The system has worked fine so far. Just because you and a bunch of other people are butthurt doesn't mean it's time to toss out the Constitution.

We're not butthurt, we're just deniers and hater dupes.

Am I right?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lots of people are trusted with the constitution. The supreme court will never see 99.999...% of cases involving laws written according to our constitution. The system has worked fine so far. Just because you and a bunch of other people are butthurt doesn't mean it's time to toss out the Constitution.

We're not butthurt, we're just deniers and hater dupes.

Am I right?

Yeah and I'm just an America hating Dimocrap Obamabot

 

[Mr. H.]

Lots of people are trusted with the constitution. The supreme court will never see 99.999...% of cases involving laws written according to our constitution. The system has worked fine so far. Just because you and a bunch of other people are butthurt doesn't mean it's time to toss out the Constitution.

We're not butthurt, we're just deniers and hater dupes.

Am I right?

Yeah and I'm just an America hating Dimocrap Obamabot

Captain Obvious has spoken.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lots of people are trusted with the constitution. The supreme court will never see 99.999...% of cases involving laws written according to our constitution. The system has worked fine so far. Just because you and a bunch of other people are butthurt doesn't mean it's time to toss out the Constitution.

We're not butthurt, we're just deniers and hater dupes.

Am I right?

Yeah and I'm just an America hating Dimocrap Obamabot

Captain Obvious has spoken.

Pipe down you repuke hater rube

 

[Mr. H.]

Lots of people are trusted with the constitution. The supreme court will never see 99.999...% of cases involving laws written according to our constitution. The system has worked fine so far. Just because you and a bunch of other people are butthurt doesn't mean it's time to toss out the Constitution.

We're not butthurt, we're just deniers and hater dupes.

Am I right?

Yeah and I'm just an America hating Dimocrap Obamabot

Captain Obvious has spoken.

Pipe down you repuke hater rube

THAT'S MISTER REPUKE HATER RUBE TO YOU!

 

[TheOldSchool]

Lots of people are trusted with the constitution. The supreme court will never see 99.999...% of cases involving laws written according to our constitution. The system has worked fine so far. Just because you and a bunch of other people are butthurt doesn't mean it's time to toss out the Constitution.

We're not butthurt, we're just deniers and hater dupes.

Am I right?

Yeah and I'm just an America hating Dimocrap Obamabot

Captain Obvious has spoken.

Pipe down you repuke hater rube

THAT'S MISTER REPUKE HATER RUBE TO YOU!

 

[Skylar]

Has the evolution of SCOTUS violated its original intent?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said regarding his concerns that SCOTUS had usurped its Constitutional intent during his life time

Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail Adams, John Adam's wife, regarding Marbury vs. Madison, a case decision that appalled him

"The Constitution......meant that its coordinate branches should be checks and balances on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Jefferson became even more adamant about the potential abuses of SCOTUS later in life as he wrote this to William Jarvis.

"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.......and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Who gives a shit what Jefferson thought? He has virtually no role in crafting the constitution, wasn't in the country when it was written, wasn't even a delegate. He wrote none of the federalist papers, not a single of the rights in the Bill of rights, nor voted on any portion of it. Nor was he a federalist, the political group lead by Hamilton and Madison in writing the constitution.

In short, among founders you would be hard pressed to find a founder who's impression of the constitution is more irrelevant to the actual document.

 

[Clementine]

SCOTUS outstepped it's bounds with the latest decision. The way I understand it is that they upheld a portion of the law (that didn't exist) because they were trying to help the law meet it's intended purpose, meaning affordable healthcare. It meant taking it upon themselves to amend the law since the language in the current law does not allow these subsidies on the federal exchange. Of course, they didn't address the people that are paying through the nose so these subsidies can happen. They made it affordable for one group, but less affordable for everyone else. Obamacare was designed to fail and pave the way for single payer. SCOTUS just sold us down the river.

 

[Skylar]

SCOTUS outstepped it's bounds with the latest decision. The way I understand it is that they upheld a portion of the law (that didn't exist) because they were trying to help the law meet it's intended purpose, meaning affordable healthcare. It meant taking it upon themselves to amend the law since the language in the current law does not allow these subsidies on the federal exchange. Of course, they didn't address the people that are paying through the nose so these subsidies can happen. They made it affordable for one group, but less affordable for everyone else. Obamacare was designed to fail and pave the way for single payer. SCOTUS just sold us down the river.

They found that the legislative intent of the law was obvious. And they ruled with the legislative intent. Which is what precedent requires.

 

[Votto]

Has the evolution of SCOTUS violated its original intent?

Here is what Thomas Jefferson said regarding his concerns that SCOTUS had usurped its Constitutional intent during his life time

Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail Adams, John Adam's wife, regarding Marbury vs. Madison, a case decision that appalled him

"The Constitution......meant that its coordinate branches should be checks and balances on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what are not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the legislature and executive also in their spheres, would make the judiciary a despotic branch."

Jefferson became even more adamant about the potential abuses of SCOTUS later in life as he wrote this to William Jarvis.

"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.......and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

Who gives a shit what Jefferson thought? He has virtually no role in crafting the constitution, wasn't in the country when it was written, wasn't even a delegate. He wrote none of the federalist papers, not a single of the rights in the Bill of rights, nor voted on any portion of it. Nor was he a federalist, the political group lead by Hamilton and Madison in writing the constitution.

In short, among founders you would be hard pressed to find a founder who's impression of the constitution is more irrelevant to the actual document.

Like it or not, Jefferson was a vital component to the nations founding. He wrote the Declaration of Independence, and gave valuable input into its founding.

He was also the third President of the US, and fought the Alien and Sedition laws.

Think about it, these men just fought a bloody war to be free from the state, and then they enact sedition laws that make it illegal to criticize the state? If Jefferson had not fought this, the US, if not the world, would have been a much darker place.. In fact, part of the Alien and Sedition laws were resurrected when FDR threw innocent Japanese Americans into jail during WW2, just because of their race.

If it were up to Jefferson, he would have included slaves in the Declaration of Independence and they would have been free. It would have stopped a war that cost the lives about 1 million Americans had he had his way.

So yes, I care what Jefferson has to say. How about you?

 

[Votto]

So, is Scalia channeling Jefferson when he says this?

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."

Probably.

It's always helpful to have a few dissenters on the stooge court. It would not look good if they all voted the same way all the time.