Im curious about what you think of supreme court decisions that go against you (your views). Is it automatically a bad call, or do you go, "hmm, i can see their point, I guess i was wrong".
later,
epic
later,
epic
Your view on supreme court decisions.
- Thread starter epicstruggle
- Start date
epicstruggle said:
Do you have anything in mind in particular?
2 things come to mind.london-boy said:
(past)Roe v Wade:I think the courts were "wrong" in taking the case. They should have left it up to the states, which at that point meant that 35+/50 allowed abortions. By having the supreme court step in it polarized the country for the last few decades.
(present/near future):Whether or not gays should be allowed to marry(not talking about union).
So if the supreme court takes a look at gay marriage will your views color whether or not you believe they decided properly?
later,
epic
It all comes down to our word against theirs. They're a supreme court, with judges that have been that job for decades, and we are "just we". We are opinionated according to culture. Their job is "trying" to be objective with the law in mind.
Personally i tend to think "they know better" and then stop getting frustrated if i don't agree with what they think, since i have my own problems to worry about (new man!
).
Personally i tend to think "they know better" and then stop getting frustrated if i don't agree with what they think, since i have my own problems to worry about (new man!
Im split, I usually will give them the benefit of the doubt. But there are certain decision where Ill go nuts.london-boy said:Personally i tend to think "they know better" and then stop getting frustrated if i don't agree with what they think, since i have my own problems to worry about (new man!).
later,
epic
(Gosh i'm serious-ish today!)
At the end of the day we have to think about the difference here between, asy, me (=22 year old, working and studying Financial Economics, still-not-graduate-but-i-will-one-day) and them (=~70 years old, with the best education one could ever dream of, ~50 years of experience in the Legal Sector)...
I tend to think "Ok, whatever you say.." even when their decisions ARE straight from the 18th century, those few times.
At the end of the day we have to think about the difference here between, asy, me (=22 year old, working and studying Financial Economics, still-not-graduate-but-i-will-one-day) and them (=~70 years old, with the best education one could ever dream of, ~50 years of experience in the Legal Sector)...
I tend to think "Ok, whatever you say.." even when their decisions ARE straight from the 18th century, those few times.
For me, it depends on whether or not they're actually acting/interpreting within the law or simply making things up to enact whatever social justice they deem proper.
Good point, things like "right to privacy" where the heck is that in the constitution??RussSchultz said:
later,
epic
epicstruggle said:
I don't think you can really compare it. People tend to think in terms of right or wrong and that is not what the court should be doing. Their task is to interpret what the law says. And even though the appointment process can be somewhat iffy I think that the people who end up on that court generally know a lot more about the law than I do :?
epicstruggle said:
Hmm.. the Fourth Amendment provides "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ... ." Restrictions imposed by the Fourth Amendment are effective against the federal government while the Fourteenth Amendment imposes these restrictions on state and local governments.
Unreasonable search and seizure doesn't even begin to explain where the "right" to choose came from.
Not saying that I'm for or against the option to choose, but I just don't see where in the constitution it became a right, excepting from the butts of 9 robed justices that decided on some judicial fiat.
Not saying that I'm for or against the option to choose, but I just don't see where in the constitution it became a right, excepting from the butts of 9 robed justices that decided on some judicial fiat.
Florin tried to suggest that the right to privacy (upon which Roe v Wade stands) came from the 4th and 14th amendment.
The right to privacy was a made up right that emmenated from the "penumbra" of enumerated rights way back in Griswold v Connecticut(1965), and developed through a series of cases as the activist court (in my mind) chipped away at the problem (the Constitution) until they had built up enough precedence to bludgeon the right to an abortion into the Constitution and achieve the desired result.
The right to privacy was a made up right that emmenated from the "penumbra" of enumerated rights way back in Griswold v Connecticut(1965), and developed through a series of cases as the activist court (in my mind) chipped away at the problem (the Constitution) until they had built up enough precedence to bludgeon the right to an abortion into the Constitution and achieve the desired result.
RussSchultz said:
Those amendments provide the foundations of the right to privacy. I was not talking about Roe vs Wade or how it applies to that case.
However, personally speaking I would say it is a good example of a case where the court interprets the law and does the 'right' thing at the same time.