Supreme Court Decisions

[j2k4]

Do Americans have a right/obligation to question the rulings of the Supreme Court, especially with regard to the Constitution of the United States and it's amendments?

[Samurai]

Yes

[j2k4]

You have the right to question anything you want.

You have both freedom of will and freedom of expression.

It is not however an obligation, freedom of expression must extend to keeping your yap shut.

Just so-thank you for supplying that essential caveat, sir.

The obligation would be a moral one, perhaps, not a legal one.

[TheDave]

yeah, without that right the people with power would do even more stupid unfair things

[vidcc]

yes one has the right to question.....However that doesn't mean that just because one disagrees with a decision that the ruling is incorrect.

[Illuminati]

It is the right, nay duty of every citizen to question the decisions made by their leadership. We must not consider the democratic process as permission to abrogate responsibility for our actions, collective or otherwise.

Citizens are responsible for the actions their state takes on their behalf. It is important that one ensures that those actions are acceptable to one's own moral or ethical code. If they are not then one must question the decisions and actions and try to do something to counter them.

Amen :) Of course, the government has every right to ignore them...and we have every right to kick them out.

And I can't wait to show my MPs what I think of them next summer...:devil:

[Rat Faced]

If you do not question them, then the society would become static.

[jetje]

i voted no cause it almost did show that everyone says 'yes' that made this poll a bit... eh...

well you'll get it :)

[Arm]

Think for yourself and question authority. :01:

Every time the Supreme Court makes a decision that fits your beliefs, than they are doing their job. When they make a decision that disagrees with your beliefs then there activist judges. :lookaroun

[maebach]

i voted no cause it almost did show that everyone says 'yes' that made this poll a bit... eh...

well you'll get it :)

same :lol: , plus most american I've seen are idiots (TV, Radio, I visited New Jersey plenty of times)

[manker]

i voted no cause it almost did show that everyone says 'yes' that made this poll a bit... eh...

well you'll get it :)

same :lol: , plus most american I've seen are idiots (TV, Radio, I visited New Jersey plenty of times) :ermm:

You think most Americans are idiots yet you voted 'no' in a poll purely because more people had voted yes.

Tell me, do you even the slightest clue what this poll is asking.

[sArA]

To question the validity of a decision must surely be the right of every citizen in a pluralistic and democratic society.

If no-one questions the actions of decision makers, then it means that they have carte blanche to do as they wish. This clearly gives far too much power to far too few.

It is one of the few ways that citizens can help to ensure that poor decisions are reversed, that fairness is maintained or at least aimed for and that those in power are held accountable.

[vidcc]

When did this one get bumped?

loosely connected:

Recent events have highlighted the need for a balanced court. It should not be weighed to favour the views of the far right or far left.
When a vacancy need filling the president of the time should remember that he is the president of all Americans and not just the ones that voted for him/her.

[vidcc]

Recent events have highlighted the need for a balanced court. It should not be weighed to favour the views of the far right or far left.


Which is precisely why the President should select a strict constructionist/interpreter of the Constitution; such candidates do not lean in any direction but are, rather, true to the document which empowers them.

If the President is successful in this endeavor, no ideology is served or favored over another.

The making of law is constitutionally and properly left to the Senate.

Do you think that he has?

I think there are many issues today that the founders could not have anticipated which is what makes the supreme court task of interpretation so hard and open to criticism.
Do you think if Roberts actually states he is pro choice (he won't but just imagine) he will still be supported by the republicans?
I do wonder sometimes when I hear people like the FRC reps. saying that all that matters is if he is qualified when talking about Roberts...but they seem to think that anyone that is pro choice isn't qualified. Look how the right attacked Alberto Gonzales even though he is "well qualified" because he isn't conservative enough for them.
I don't believe he has been in his position long enough to be exempted becuase he was involved in processes he may have to rule on. Given his age and the possible amount of time he could sit.

I also wonder if the groups quoting "states rights :rolleyes:" with roe v wade would be argueing for states rights if the supreme court outlawed abortion completely except to save the life of the mother. After all the schrivo affair showed us that it isn't about states rights at all.

By all accounts nearly 70% of the US population don't want Roe v wade overturned.

[vidcc]

By all accounts nearly 70% of the US population don't want Roe v wade overturned.

By all accounts 90% of your 70% don't have the first idea of what it would mean to overturn Roe v Wade, most of them have no notion whatsoever of state's rights, and the rest don't even know where their polling place is.

You know this is true, vid.

Sad, sad... :(
Are you suggesting this is the case with the justices that made the ruling?

[vidcc]

Are you suggesting this is the case with the justices that made the ruling?

Not quite sure what you mean.



it was a question because you seem to be suggesting that those that don't want roe v wade overturned have no idea what states rights are...so logically the people that made the roe ruling.......................


As to the rest of your post.


I hate to say it but Arm hit a point. Not perhaps for you but as to what an activist judge is....a judge whose ruling one disagrees with.

As I said the founders could not have anticipated todays world, so ruling on todays issues with yesterdays rules is bound to upset someone. Add "political speak" and the issue gets lost.

I disagree with the eminent domain ruling but I don't think the judges were creating law. I believe that they ruled on the case in front of them. The limitations of the law were not clear and needed to be amended, which is what is happening across the country, not by the courts but by the people that should have ensured the law was clear to start with.

[vidcc]

I don't believe I just read what you posted, vid.

Apparently you and Justice Souter have the same defective dictionary.

I said I disagreed with it :blink: . I always thought it should be purely for things like roads or dams where there was no real alternative. But apparently the wording of the law was not specific and a case was made.

Have you heard someone is trying to build a hotel on a judges land using eminent domain? :shifty:

I don't find it odd at all that many votes are divided. Different people read different meanings. That said even if the ruling was unanimous I still think they would be accused of being activists whenever one dislikes the outcome.

Even the beloved Bible is interpreted to suit

BTW. what was the "score card" for roe v wade ;)

[manker]

I thought all of j2's posts were put back now.

[tesco]

I thought all of j2's posts were put back now.Nope he told me not to bother spending too much time on it.:ermm:

[JPaul]

I thought all of j2's posts were put back now.
Nah, I couldn't be arsed. I thought you would fall for it.

[manker]

I thought all of j2's posts were put back now.Nope he told me not to bother spending too much time on it.:ermm:
Get one of your minions to do it. Like lynx.

[j2k4]

I thought all of j2's posts were put back now.

I'd guesstimate 3-4K are in the ether somewhere.

There is a hole (as it were) in my chronology. :)

[Wolfmight]

Once upon a time, there was a dick with a bush.
The end