Us Supreme Court

You asked for it Clocker
I was going to state my full opinion, but I fear it would turn into a full blown essay.
Let me start with - I'm not 100% sure, but I'm leaning towards the position that they're getting far to big for their britches.
I believe States should be able to make their own laws, but at the same time we don't want them to make such a law that obviously fly's in the face of the Constitution.
It's like having 9 all powerful kings.

Here are some Examples that I have to question.

Supreme Court nixes copyright challenge
10:09 Thursday 16th January 2003
Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com

Activists argue that the decision hands the entertainment industry too much power over artistic works such as Mickey Mouse cartoons, and damages freedom of speech

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday said Congress had the power to extend the duration of copyrights, a decision that dealt a grave blow to a growing movement against more expansive legal protections of artistic works.
In a strongly worded ruling, the court said by a 7-2 majority that the legislature had great leeway in allowing repeated delays to when copyrighted works would enter the public domain. The ruling means that Walt Disney's first Mickey Mouse cartoons, poems by Robert Frost and other works created in the 1920s fall under a retroactive copyright extension of 20 yearsFull Article
--------------------------
This one is a very good read! ;)

The Rutherford Institute
The Supreme Court Grants Police Too Much Power
John W. Whitehead
05/01/2001

On an early spring day four years ago, Gail Atwater, a mother of two, was driving her pick-up truck through a neighborhood in Lago Vista, Texas. Her 3-year-old son and 5-year-old daughter were with her in the front seat. The only thing unusual about the scene was that Mrs. Atwater was breaking the law—specifically, she had failed to buckle up herself and her two children, although she was driving at a speed of less than 20 miles per hour.

A police officer spotted the violation and signaled for Mrs. Atwater to pull over. When he pointed out her omission, she apologized immediately—but that wasn’t enough. The officer began yelling at her, saying, “You’re going to jail.” As her terrified, weeping children cowered in their seats, Mrs. Atwater asked if she could first take them to a neighbor’s house. But the officer refused, telling her, “You’re not going anywhere!”
Intresting? Click here
----------------
“The Supreme Court has too much power for an unelected body.
Nick Carter

Ever since the debate over ratification of the Constitution in 1787, worries have been expressed over the power of the Supreme Court. More recently, concerns were raised when the Court declared several of Roosevelt’s New Deal policies unconstitutional; its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954); and the line taken on abortion in Roe v. Wade (1973). Surely, it is argued, unelected and unaccountable justices should not have the power to overturn the democratically expressed will of the people? Did the Warren Court not effectively take executive decisions well outside its proper jurisdiction? These questions, amongst others, are cited by those who feel the Supreme Court is over-powerful. Others claim that the Court’s power is in fact quite limited, citing its lack of enforcement powers, its inability to initiate policy, and its dependence upon popular support and respect for its authority. To explore this title, two main discussions will be necessary, one determining how much power the Court has, the other to debate the significant of the Court not being directly elected.

The Supreme Court derives its power from three main sources.....
Full Article

Well that should get us going. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ShockAndAwe^i^@29 June 2003 - 23:37

I believe States should be able to make their own laws, but at the same time we don't want them to make such a law that obviously fly's in the face of the Constitution.
It's like having 9 all powerful kings.

---

Nine " all powerful kings" as opposed to what? Fifty squabbling barons?

We are after all a 'Federation' of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.
Obviously we could both throw S.C. decisions back and forth to illustrate our dis/agreement with specific instances, but overall do you question the need to have such a body?
Like any part of our form of government, the Supreme Court must struggle with the intent of the Founding Fathers and the realities of the world in which we live today. A world unimaginable to those who wrote the Constitution.
Overall, I think that the concept has worked out pretty well, but I'm willing to consider alternatives.
How would you suggest modifying the duties/powers of the Court to better suit your vision?

Quote:

---

We are after all a 'Federation' of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.

---

Excuse me, but in this area at least...EU is closer to being one country than the USA.....(dammit, and ive been saying we arent losing soveriegnity <_< )

If someone is arrested in UK, they can take the matter to the European Court, if they believe the Law in the UK is wrong. If the majority of Europe follows one "law" and the UK doesnt, then we are made to conform...eg: 13 years ago, most issues of Playboy in the USA would have got you arrested in the UK under the obscene Publications Act. Now hardcore is freely available over the counter...because it was legal elswhere in Europe, and we had to conform.

In the US, every state has its own Laws; that are nothing to do with the USA as a whole....all you have to do is go over the border...that doesnt work in the EU. You will be arrested in that country too.

S&A,
While I appreciate the delicate balance we need to strike between &#39;Federal" and &#39;State&#39;s&#39; rights, don&#39;t forget that the balance has also tipped too far in the wrong direction vis a vis &#39;State&#39;s rights&#39; also...
http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/...lace091398.gif

Rat Faced
I was not aware of that.
I know your not going to agree with me on this, but that is scary&#33;
It&#39;s Biblical even&#33;
That blows me totally away&#33;

Clocker
That is a stupendous picture to Illustrate what your saying.
It&#39;s late and I&#39;m tired and can&#39;t form a credible opinion until tomorrow.
I&#39;ll sleep on it&#33;

Btw, if you commit a crime and cross a state border (however small the crime may be) it turns immediately into a felony.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 June 2003 - 18:46

Quote:

---

We are after all a &#39;Federation&#39; of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.

---

Excuse me, but in this area at least...EU is closer to being one country than the USA.....(dammit, and ive been saying we arent losing soveriegnity <_< )

If someone is arrested in UK, they can take the matter to the European Court, if they believe the Law in the UK is wrong. If the majority of Europe follows one "law" and the UK doesnt, then we are made to conform...eg: 13 years ago, most issues of Playboy in the USA would have got you arrested in the UK under the obscene Publications Act. Now hardcore is freely available over the counter...because it was legal elswhere in Europe, and we had to conform.

In the US, every state has its own Laws; that are nothing to do with the USA as a whole....all you have to do is go over the border...that doesnt work in the EU. You will be arrested in that country too.

---

Not quite right mate. As I have posted elsewhere, the UK will not extradite someone for an "offence" which is not an offence here, even to another member state.

There are two Italians resident in Scotland who are wanted to stand trial for being members of the Mafia. They have not been extradited and there is no proceedings in place to do so, even though there is a "red notice" (international arrest warrant) for both of them. They have been here for many years and no action has been taken.

If they were to go to Canada (as an example) they would be arrested and returned to Italy to stand trial.

With regard to the European Court thing, I believe you are referring to appeals, where the criminal has been through the entire appeal procedure in the relevant part of the UK. I don´t believe it is all that common.

Quote:

---

With regard to the European Court thing, I believe you are referring to appeals, where the criminal has been through the entire appeal procedure in the relevant part of the UK. I don´t believe it is all that common

---

Thank God

:lol: :lol:

You know what....
I don&#39;t have an answer&#33;
But 9 people who weren&#39;t elected have an awful lot of power.
I know, I know..your gonna say the pres. was elected and therefore they are vicariously elected.
I know, I know...you are next going to point out the problems with them actually being elected.
Oh man, can you imagine the corruption?&#33;&#33;

Quote:

---

But 9 people who weren&#39;t elected have an awful lot of power.

---

Surely these are posts that you would want people to get for their ability, not their carisma.........

I think that the primary fear regarding the Court has always been that a President can appoint (as vacancies occur) a Justice who reflects his individual ideology as opposed to being the most intellectually qualified.
This, almost certainly, has happened.
Over the course of time however, the system has seemed to work out.
The recent SC ruling on gay sex would seem to fly in the face of expectation and point to the fact that most of the time the Court is actually more responsive to effective legal argument as opposed to percieved political bias.

Also, keep in mind that only a handful of cases even make it as far as a hearing before the Supreme Court. Thus, the States really do have quite a bit of leeway interpreting the law, as only a very small percentage of decisions ever get appealed all the way to Washington.

In Scotland The Lord Advocate is responsible for all Criminal Prosecutions, he does this via his Crown Office and the Procurators Fiscal.

The Lord Advocate is a political appointment, in the gift of the Scottish Executive, I believe it is the Justice Minister who picks the Lord Advocate.

Therefore our entire judicial system is politically influenced (at least at the top).

I believe there is a similar situation in England.

Unfortunately you are correct JPaul, they are appointments.

I think Judges are also appointments, but actually picked by someone other than the Government..with the Government rubber stamping the choice.

I remember a few funny episodes of "Yes Minister" making fun of the system ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@2 July 2003 - 20:13
Unfortunately you are correct JPaul, they are appointments.

I think Judges are also appointments, but actually picked by someone other than the Government..with the Government rubber stamping the choice.

I remember a few funny episodes of "Yes Minister" making fun of the system ;)

---

Wasn&#39;t that picking the Bishop - which sounds vaguely like onanism to me.

Ideally, the paramount qualification to serve on the Supreme Court would not be intellectualism, at least as it applies to creative ability; that is to say, to create out of whole cloth that which does not already exist in the constitution.

Examples of which would be the right to privacy, and the right to abortion.

This is not to choose sides on either issue; I merely point out that neither right existed nor was implied anywhere in the original document before the Supremes decided they were "rights".

The "creative interpretation" argument, however, predates the "birth" of either of my examples.

This thread seems to be dying, but I found this in a recent copy of the "National Review", which, I will hasten to add, is a neo-conservative publication.

I meant to include it earlier as an adjunct to my other post, relative to recent congressional efforts to stall Bush&#39;s judicial nominees, as well as other matters currently pending before the court:

"The liberal converts to "judicial restraint" insist on adherence to precedent. Anything else, they say, is "activism."

But, the shoe is on the other foot.

A decision that elevates judicial power over republican government without a constitutional warrant is plainly activist.

A decision to reverse that precedent is the opposite.

Such a reversal might be termed "activist" in the trivial sense that it involves a change in the status quo.

But the Supreme Court must on appropriate occasions overrule it&#39;s own precedents.

A consistent failure to do so would signal that the Supreme Court considered it&#39;s own edicts, rather than the Constitution itself, to be the supreme law of the land."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 June 2003 - 18:46

Quote:

---

We are after all a &#39;Federation&#39; of states and without a body to oversee continuity amongst the individual participants we would be more like Europe than what (ever) we are today.

---

Excuse me, but in this area at least...EU is closer to being one country than the USA.....(dammit, and ive been saying we arent losing soveriegnity <_< )

If someone is arrested in UK, they can take the matter to the European Court, if they believe the Law in the UK is wrong. If the majority of Europe follows one "law" and the UK doesnt, then we are made to conform...eg: 13 years ago, most issues of Playboy in the USA would have got you arrested in the UK under the obscene Publications Act. Now hardcore is freely available over the counter...because it was legal elswhere in Europe, and we had to conform.

In the US, every state has its own Laws; that are nothing to do with the USA as a whole....all you have to do is go over the border...that doesnt work in the EU. You will be arrested in that country too.

---

and we can all work anywhere over here in Europe any eec member has the right to work in any eec country
what chances has a mexican of getting a good job in the U.S.

I like it here in Europe I dont want to leave. Vive la France

Sorry realy off topic.

Neil

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neil__@6 July 2003 - 12:49

and we can all work anywhere over here in Europe any eec member has the right to work in any eec country
what chances has a mexican of getting a good job in the U.S.

I like it here in Europe I dont want to leave. Vive la France

---

A Mexican?

Given the current economy and very tight job market, a Mexican would probably find it rough going.

Hispanic Americans seem to be doing all right, however.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker+6 July 2003 - 20:13--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 6 July 2003 - 20:13)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Neil__@6 July 2003 - 12:49

and we can all work anywhere over here in Europe any eec member has the right to work in any eec country
what chances has a mexican of getting a good job in the U.S.

I like it here in Europe I dont want to leave. Vive la France

---

A Mexican?

Given the current economy and very tight job market, a Mexican would probably find it rough going.

Hispanic Americans seem to be doing all right, however. [/b][/quote]
I get the impression that bothers you.

Neil

Quote:

---

I get the impression that bothers you.

Neil

---

Can&#39;t imagine why.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@6 July 2003 - 22:55

Quote:

---

I get the impression that bothers you.

Neil

---

Can&#39;t imagine why.

---

Sorry
Just a thought
Forget it.

Neil.

Just to bring the post slightly back to topic and through in my two cents here, I think that no, the SC does not have too much power. It must be remembered the the Court has no way to enforce it&#39;s decisions, and relies on the other two branches of Govt, the legislature and the Executive to do so. An excellent example of this was Warren&#39;s liberal Court of the 70s, where the supposed desegregation set in motion didn&#39;t actually occur until years later, and US troops were involved in bussing. Another example was when the Court deemed that capital punishment was cruel and unusual, and one justice claimed that another execution would never be seen in the US. Look how well that turned out for them.

the one thing? the supreme court has the right to use the constitution of the United States, and with that power lay down an absolute rule of law governed by the Constitution and therefore the People so if the Institution of the supream court is pure it can never have too much power.

So the question is,
How trustworthy are the Supreme Court Judges?

Neil

I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a question of trust in itself...ALL Supreme Court Judges are appointed toand indeed do, interpret the Constitution, whether they are strict or loose constructionist is a different matter. The problem therefore lies with the Constitution itself, and the passages which are not entirely clear.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolverine@7 July 2003 - 00:58
I don&#39;t think it&#39;s a question of trust in itself...ALL Supreme Court Judges are appointed toand indeed do, interpret the Constitution, whether they are strict or loose constructionist is a different matter. The problem therefore lies with the Constitution itself, and the passages which are not entirely clear.

---

A constitution cannot be clear as we change then our rights move with us
the constitution has to be interpretive otherwise it serves no purpose.

it just binds us.

Neil

Well then, whats the problem? Justices interpet the constitution, and the constitution is loose enough to move with the times. The only way that a Justice cannot be trusted is if he acts unconstitutionally, and I certainly don&#39;t know of any that have. Even if they do, they can be removed for unreasonable behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolverine@7 July 2003 - 01:17
Well then, whats the problem? Justices interpet the constitution, and the constitution is loose enough to move with the times. The only way that a Justice cannot be trusted is if he acts unconstitutionally, and I certainly don&#39;t know of any that have. Even if they do, they can be removed for unreasonable behaviour.

---

Then obviously the problem must be
"How much do you trust your supreme court judges?"

Neil.

Then the answer would be a million percent, because if they don&#39;t do what they&#39;re intended to do they&#39;l get removed.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wolverine@7 July 2003 - 01:38
Then the answer would be a million percent, because if they don&#39;t do what they&#39;re intended to do they&#39;l get removed.

---

But that cant be left for you to decide
and if they can be replaced so easily then how far do you trust the judge masters

Neil.