PDA

View Full Version : Why dont these landmark SCOTUS cases trump Democratic offal?


Falstaff
12-18-2012, 7:40 PM
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137
The Constitution of these united States is the supreme law of the
land. Any law that is repugnant to the constitution is null and void
of law.

MURDOCK v. PENN., 319 U.S. 105
No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and
attach a fee to it.

SHUTTLESWORTH v. BIRMINGHAM, 373 U.S. 262
It the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can
engage in the right with impunity.

OWEN v.INDEPENDENCE, 100 S.C.T. 1398
Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a
constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know
the law.

BYARS v. U.S., 116 U.S. 616
The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally
secured liberty.

MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436
Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule [law] making or legislation which would abrogate [abolish]
them.

mag360
12-18-2012, 8:58 PM
Because we aren't mad enough yet. I don't really know.

nobody_special
12-18-2012, 9:36 PM
After last Friday, can we still count to 5?

ASTMedic
12-18-2012, 9:46 PM
I'd really like to hear more input on this since it's always been a question of mine.

kcbrown
12-18-2012, 11:00 PM
Because the courts themselves do not take what they say seriously. With very few exceptions, they issue decisions that reflect what they want, no more and no less (there do exist court judges that have real integrity, e.g. Posner on the 7th Circuit, but such judges are very, very rare).

The courts are supposed to act as a check against the legislature, and yet they have crafted a multitude of rules that have the sole purpose of allowing them to avoid issuing a ruling. Among those is their rule that says they are to presume the Constitutionality of the law being challenged. They presume the law need only pass a "rational basis" test if there is no enumerated Constitutional right involved. They use a "rational basis" test and call it some form of heightened scrutiny (be it intermediate or strict).

Courts are as dishonest as the rest of the government.


In the face of that, how can it possibly be a surprise that the government has turned very nearly everything you can think of into a privilege, with the courts looking on in approval?

Why do you think I'm so skeptical that we're going to win anytime soon?

nothinghere2c
12-18-2012, 11:04 PM
my opinion...

a lot of the court cases don't get media attention and aren't widely assimilated into people's brains. most people don't give a rats *** what happened in some "landmark" court cases they just want to be entertained by prime time tv.

i'm surprised how many people are shocked when i tell them about the Heller case and how handguns are not going away. they sort of stutter around for a minute, realize guns will always be here, then their eyes glaze over and they ask me if i saw that sweet pass on sunday night's game.

:facepalm:

htjyang
12-18-2012, 11:50 PM
I'm sure it's comforting to blame all our current ills on "the politicians" or "the courts", as if somehow they are impositions from a hostile alien force. In reality, of course, they are impositions from us and our fellow citizens. Sometimes, they are the people we voted for. Other times, they were voted into office by our fellow citizens. If the people do not live up to the ideals of the Framers, why should it be any surprise that the courts do not, either? They are, directly or indirectly, the results of decisions made by the citizenry and there is no reason to assume that somehow they should be insulated from the failures of the people. At most, such insulation might happen for a short period of time, but never for long.

So, rather than asking some imperial judiciary to save us from ourselves, I think it is much more productive to ask why people do not live up to the ideals of the Framers in the first place.

M1Kev
12-18-2012, 11:53 PM
I'm sure it's comforting to blame all our current ills on "the politicians" or "the courts", as if somehow they are impositions from a hostile alien force. In reality, of course, they are impositions from us and our fellow citizens. Sometimes, they are the people we voted for. Other times, they were voted into office by our fellow citizens. If the people do not live up to the ideals of the Framers, why should it be any surprise that the courts do not, either? They are, directly or indirectly, the results of decisions made by the citizenry and there is no reason to assume that somehow they should be insulated from the failures of the people. At most, such insulation might happen for a short period of time, but never for long.

So, rather than asking some imperial judiciary to save us from ourselves, I think it is much more productive to ask why people do not live up to the ideals of the Framers in the first place.

Because the Framers would have made them work...