What is the actual role of the Supreme Court

[TheCrusader]

Introduction: I'm going to keep my original post in its entirety but it's rough, so in this introduction I'll just briefly summarize that the Supreme Court is very much a necessary evil that behaves as a Dictator when a Dictator is necessary, but is crafted in such a way as to limit its ability to exercise full dictatorship. It's power is to counter-balance the minority protections.

You see the Constitution protects minorities and gives them so much veto power, that a former majority that passes very prejudiced laws, can become a minority, and then through obstruction can defeat any attempt to overturn those laws by the majority.

The Supreme Court exists to just dictatorially overthrow the minority.

Here is my rant in its original context:

The dirty secret about the Supreme Court is they represent the Dictatorship of the fascists. That is their SOLE purpose. They are a controlled Dictatorship of the people, they are the will of the people to do anything extra-judicially.

The Congress makes a law? With the stroke of the pen the Supreme Court obliterates the law.

They don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right or true.

They only have to impress the will of the people, the people can take away their power, but the Congress and President cannot.

That is the secret fact of the Supreme Court that they don't teach you in high school civics.

The supreme court never never uses the law as the sole principle on which they judge constitutionality, they use public opinion, if the opinion is too equally divided almost always the court will throw out the case and give it to the politicians to fight over it, because the existence of the authority of the Judiciary rests on the opinion of the people.

If the opinion of the people is obvious, then they will side with the people for self preservation.

You don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court analyzes a law and comes to a logical conclusion do you?

Then explain how the same court can support Segregation in 1870, then throw it out in 1950.

Explain how the same court can reinterpret a sentence that has never been altered?

If you use the Supreme Court to support your beliefs you are basing your beliefs on the whims of a Dictator like Hitler.

Whatever that Dictator says, is law, whenever they want it to be.

It just so happens "Our Dictator" (the panel of nine supreme court justices) is a benevolent one, carefully crafted that way, to jealously guard its position from losing legitimacy.

This was actually in the "Marshall v. Ferguson" case that defined the role of the Judiciary as having Judicial Review (previously a realm of only Juror review which no almost no longer exists).

Marshall made the claim that so long as the people supported his dictatorial power over Jefferson's constitutional authority, via interpretation, then the interpretation is valid. He made his interpretation, the people didn't hang him, and so it was valid.

Does that sound like some logical and democratic institution?

No, it is the necessary dictatorship that exists to break stalemate and overcome minority prejudice against majority opinion in a system designed to give powerful veto power to minorities who protect their once privileged majority position.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Introduction: I'm going to keep my original post in its entirety but it's rough, so in this introduction I'll just briefly summarize that the Supreme Court is very much a necessary evil that behaves as a Dictator when a Dictator is necessary, but is crafted in such a way as to limit its ability to exercise full dictatorship. It's power is to counter-balance the minority protections.

You see the Constitution protects minorities and gives them so much veto power, that a former majority that passes very prejudiced laws, can become a minority, and then through obstruction can defeat any attempt to overturn those laws by the majority.

The Supreme Court exists to just dictatorially overthrow the minority.

Here is my rant in its original context:

The dirty secret about the Supreme Court is they represent the Dictatorship of the fascists. That is their SOLE purpose. They are a controlled Dictatorship of the people, they are the will of the people to do anything extra-judicially.

The Congress makes a law? With the stroke of the pen the Supreme Court obliterates the law.

They don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right or true.

They only have to impress the will of the people, the people can take away their power, but the Congress and President cannot.

That is the secret fact of the Supreme Court that they don't teach you in high school civics.

The supreme court never never uses the law as the sole principle on which they judge constitutionality, they use public opinion, if the opinion is too equally divided almost always the court will throw out the case and give it to the politicians to fight over it, because the existence of the authority of the Judiciary rests on the opinion of the people.

If the opinion of the people is obvious, then they will side with the people for self preservation.

You don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court analyzes a law and comes to a logical conclusion do you?

Then explain how the same court can support Segregation in 1870, then throw it out in 1950.

Explain how the same court can reinterpret a sentence that has never been altered?

If you use the Supreme Court to support your beliefs you are basing your beliefs on the whims of a Dictator like Hitler.

Whatever that Dictator says, is law, whenever they want it to be.

It just so happens "Our Dictator" (the panel of nine supreme court justices) is a benevolent one, carefully crafted that way, to jealously guard its position from losing legitimacy.

This was actually in the "Marshall v. Ferguson" case that defined the role of the Judiciary as having Judicial Review (previously a realm of only Juror review which no almost no longer exists).

Marshall made the claim that so long as the people supported his dictatorial power over Jefferson's constitutional authority, via interpretation, then the interpretation is valid. He made his interpretation, the people didn't hang him, and so it was valid.

Does that sound like some logical and democratic institution?

No, it is the necessary dictatorship that exists to break stalemate and overcome minority prejudice against majority opinion in a system designed to give powerful veto power to minorities who protect their once privileged majority position.

In the context of Obama as President, the Supreme Court has no role per se ditto both Houses of Congress. Obama has a habit of just ignoring laws and making his own and then doing an Executive Order.

 

[TheCrusader]

Introduction: I'm going to keep my original post in its entirety but it's rough, so in this introduction I'll just briefly summarize that the Supreme Court is very much a necessary evil that behaves as a Dictator when a Dictator is necessary, but is crafted in such a way as to limit its ability to exercise full dictatorship. It's power is to counter-balance the minority protections.

You see the Constitution protects minorities and gives them so much veto power, that a former majority that passes very prejudiced laws, can become a minority, and then through obstruction can defeat any attempt to overturn those laws by the majority.

The Supreme Court exists to just dictatorially overthrow the minority.

Here is my rant in its original context:

The dirty secret about the Supreme Court is they represent the Dictatorship of the fascists. That is their SOLE purpose. They are a controlled Dictatorship of the people, they are the will of the people to do anything extra-judicially.

The Congress makes a law? With the stroke of the pen the Supreme Court obliterates the law.

They don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right or true.

They only have to impress the will of the people, the people can take away their power, but the Congress and President cannot.

That is the secret fact of the Supreme Court that they don't teach you in high school civics.

The supreme court never never uses the law as the sole principle on which they judge constitutionality, they use public opinion, if the opinion is too equally divided almost always the court will throw out the case and give it to the politicians to fight over it, because the existence of the authority of the Judiciary rests on the opinion of the people.

If the opinion of the people is obvious, then they will side with the people for self preservation.

You don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court analyzes a law and comes to a logical conclusion do you?

Then explain how the same court can support Segregation in 1870, then throw it out in 1950.

Explain how the same court can reinterpret a sentence that has never been altered?

If you use the Supreme Court to support your beliefs you are basing your beliefs on the whims of a Dictator like Hitler.

Whatever that Dictator says, is law, whenever they want it to be.

It just so happens "Our Dictator" (the panel of nine supreme court justices) is a benevolent one, carefully crafted that way, to jealously guard its position from losing legitimacy.

This was actually in the "Marshall v. Ferguson" case that defined the role of the Judiciary as having Judicial Review (previously a realm of only Juror review which no almost no longer exists).

Marshall made the claim that so long as the people supported his dictatorial power over Jefferson's constitutional authority, via interpretation, then the interpretation is valid. He made his interpretation, the people didn't hang him, and so it was valid.

Does that sound like some logical and democratic institution?

No, it is the necessary dictatorship that exists to break stalemate and overcome minority prejudice against majority opinion in a system designed to give powerful veto power to minorities who protect their once privileged majority position.

In the context of Obama as President, the Supreme Court has no role per se ditto both Houses of Congress. Obama has a habit of just ignoring laws and making his own and then doing an Executive Order.

This is just dogma, it's like you're spewing republican talking points in a thread that isn't even political, but informational.

 

[Billyjack]

Introduction: I'm going to keep my original post in its entirety but it's rough, so in this introduction I'll just briefly summarize that the Supreme Court is very much a necessary evil that behaves as a Dictator when a Dictator is necessary, but is crafted in such a way as to limit its ability to exercise full dictatorship. It's power is to counter-balance the minority protections.

You see the Constitution protects minorities and gives them so much veto power, that a former majority that passes very prejudiced laws, can become a minority, and then through obstruction can defeat any attempt to overturn those laws by the majority.

The Supreme Court exists to just dictatorially overthrow the minority.

Here is my rant in its original context:

The dirty secret about the Supreme Court is they represent the Dictatorship of the fascists. That is their SOLE purpose. They are a controlled Dictatorship of the people, they are the will of the people to do anything extra-judicially.

The Congress makes a law? With the stroke of the pen the Supreme Court obliterates the law.

They don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right or true.

They only have to impress the will of the people, the people can take away their power, but the Congress and President cannot.

That is the secret fact of the Supreme Court that they don't teach you in high school civics.

The supreme court never never uses the law as the sole principle on which they judge constitutionality, they use public opinion, if the opinion is too equally divided almost always the court will throw out the case and give it to the politicians to fight over it, because the existence of the authority of the Judiciary rests on the opinion of the people.

If the opinion of the people is obvious, then they will side with the people for self preservation.

You don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court analyzes a law and comes to a logical conclusion do you?

Then explain how the same court can support Segregation in 1870, then throw it out in 1950.

Explain how the same court can reinterpret a sentence that has never been altered?

If you use the Supreme Court to support your beliefs you are basing your beliefs on the whims of a Dictator like Hitler.

Whatever that Dictator says, is law, whenever they want it to be.

It just so happens "Our Dictator" (the panel of nine supreme court justices) is a benevolent one, carefully crafted that way, to jealously guard its position from losing legitimacy.

This was actually in the "Marshall v. Ferguson" case that defined the role of the Judiciary as having Judicial Review (previously a realm of only Juror review which no almost no longer exists).

Marshall made the claim that so long as the people supported his dictatorial power over Jefferson's constitutional authority, via interpretation, then the interpretation is valid. He made his interpretation, the people didn't hang him, and so it was valid.

Does that sound like some logical and democratic institution?

No, it is the necessary dictatorship that exists to break stalemate and overcome minority prejudice against majority opinion in a system designed to give powerful veto power to minorities who protect their once privileged majority position.

 

[Billyjack]

The Courts are only allowed to exist today to provide legitimacy to the illegal acts of the federal government.

 

[Syriusly]

Introduction: I'm going to keep my original post in its entirety but it's rough, so in this introduction I'll just briefly summarize that the Supreme Court is very much a necessary evil that behaves as a Dictator when a Dictator is necessary, but is crafted in such a way as to limit its ability to exercise full dictatorship. It's power is to counter-balance the minority protections.

You see the Constitution protects minorities and gives them so much veto power, that a former majority that passes very prejudiced laws, can become a minority, and then through obstruction can defeat any attempt to overturn those laws by the majority.

The Supreme Court exists to just dictatorially overthrow the minority.

Here is my rant in its original context:

The dirty secret about the Supreme Court is they represent the Dictatorship of the fascists. That is their SOLE purpose. They are a controlled Dictatorship of the people, they are the will of the people to do anything extra-judicially.

The Congress makes a law? With the stroke of the pen the Supreme Court obliterates the law.

They don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right or true.

They only have to impress the will of the people, the people can take away their power, but the Congress and President cannot.

That is the secret fact of the Supreme Court that they don't teach you in high school civics.

The supreme court never never uses the law as the sole principle on which they judge constitutionality, they use public opinion, if the opinion is too equally divided almost always the court will throw out the case and give it to the politicians to fight over it, because the existence of the authority of the Judiciary rests on the opinion of the people.

If the opinion of the people is obvious, then they will side with the people for self preservation.

You don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court analyzes a law and comes to a logical conclusion do you?

Then explain how the same court can support Segregation in 1870, then throw it out in 1950.

Explain how the same court can reinterpret a sentence that has never been altered?

If you use the Supreme Court to support your beliefs you are basing your beliefs on the whims of a Dictator like Hitler.

Whatever that Dictator says, is law, whenever they want it to be.

It just so happens "Our Dictator" (the panel of nine supreme court justices) is a benevolent one, carefully crafted that way, to jealously guard its position from losing legitimacy.

This was actually in the "Marshall v. Ferguson" case that defined the role of the Judiciary as having Judicial Review (previously a realm of only Juror review which no almost no longer exists).

Marshall made the claim that so long as the people supported his dictatorial power over Jefferson's constitutional authority, via interpretation, then the interpretation is valid. He made his interpretation, the people didn't hang him, and so it was valid.

Does that sound like some logical and democratic institution?

No, it is the necessary dictatorship that exists to break stalemate and overcome minority prejudice against majority opinion in a system designed to give powerful veto power to minorities who protect their once privileged majority position.

Well that is a nonsensical rant.

There is nothing 'dictatorial' about the Supreme Court- it is part of the United States Constitution- and part of the United States. The justices are all chosen and confirmed by elected representatives, and then decisions are reached by a majority of justices.

Your rant is nonsensical.

 

[DGS49]

In no way does the USSC represent or respond to the will of the people - and that's fine.

They are the court of last resort in Federal cases, and in some other cases where Constitutional questions are raised, but they are rarely required to take any case, and can demur any time they like.

The "rub" is that, in the context of ruling on the constitutionality of laws and cases, they often use sophistry to inject their own personal views on what the Constitution SHOULD say, rather than interpreting what the Constitution does say (or mean, when it is not explicit).

It would be nice to have a Chief Justice one day who is willing to lead the court to say, on occasion, "This is an interesting question, but it is not covered by the United States Constitution, and it is up to the Congress and the state legislatures to take the lead on this issue."

Case in point: abortion. The Court made up what I thinks the Constitution should have said, but doesn't. Hence we have an amorphous and bizarre set of "constitutional" principles which we are all obliged to be aware of and follow.

At the pool hall, this is referred to as "bull shit."

 

[Agit8r]

Introduction: I'm going to keep my original post in its entirety but it's rough, so in this introduction I'll just briefly summarize that the Supreme Court is very much a necessary evil that behaves as a Dictator when a Dictator is necessary, but is crafted in such a way as to limit its ability to exercise full dictatorship. It's power is to counter-balance the minority protections.

You see the Constitution protects minorities and gives them so much veto power, that a former majority that passes very prejudiced laws, can become a minority, and then through obstruction can defeat any attempt to overturn those laws by the majority.

The Supreme Court exists to just dictatorially overthrow the minority.

Here is my rant in its original context:

The dirty secret about the Supreme Court is they represent the Dictatorship of the fascists. That is their SOLE purpose. They are a controlled Dictatorship of the people, they are the will of the people to do anything extra-judicially.

The Congress makes a law? With the stroke of the pen the Supreme Court obliterates the law.

They don't have to make sense, they don't have to be right or true.

They only have to impress the will of the people, the people can take away their power, but the Congress and President cannot.

That is the secret fact of the Supreme Court that they don't teach you in high school civics.

The supreme court never never uses the law as the sole principle on which they judge constitutionality, they use public opinion, if the opinion is too equally divided almost always the court will throw out the case and give it to the politicians to fight over it, because the existence of the authority of the Judiciary rests on the opinion of the people.

If the opinion of the people is obvious, then they will side with the people for self preservation.

You don't seriously believe that the Supreme Court analyzes a law and comes to a logical conclusion do you?

Then explain how the same court can support Segregation in 1870, then throw it out in 1950.

Explain how the same court can reinterpret a sentence that has never been altered?

If you use the Supreme Court to support your beliefs you are basing your beliefs on the whims of a Dictator like Hitler.

Whatever that Dictator says, is law, whenever they want it to be.

It just so happens "Our Dictator" (the panel of nine supreme court justices) is a benevolent one, carefully crafted that way, to jealously guard its position from losing legitimacy.

This was actually in the "Marshall v. Ferguson" case that defined the role of the Judiciary as having Judicial Review (previously a realm of only Juror review which no almost no longer exists).

Marshall made the claim that so long as the people supported his dictatorial power over Jefferson's constitutional authority, via interpretation, then the interpretation is valid. He made his interpretation, the people didn't hang him, and so it was valid.

Does that sound like some logical and democratic institution?

No, it is the necessary dictatorship that exists to break stalemate and overcome minority prejudice against majority opinion in a system designed to give powerful veto power to minorities who protect their once privileged majority position.

The intention of the Supreme Court was to curb democratic excesses. And yet, having no executive power, they cannot act despotically themselves.