Happy with the new conservative supreme court?

Question

And today, we're seeing that vision in all its glory.
The conservative activists on the Supreme Court decreed in a series of 5-4 decisions:
* Individuals, who believe their tax dollars are being
unconstitutionally misused by the White House to promote religious beliefs, aren't allowed to enter a courthouse to make their case.
* The Environmental Protection Agency can avoid its responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act, even though it's a law reflecting the public will as passed by the democratically-elected Congress.
* Corporations can once again use their checkbooks to flood the public airwaves with political ads during election season, again overruling Congress.
It's critical to recognize these decisions -- along with earlier decisions to end privacy between a woman and her doctor, and to make it harder to challenge pay discrimination -- are part of a pattern. FROM Bill Scher
And just wait until they get an absolute majority...

Hey "madskier" any time you want to debate with a staunch anti abortionist, and have the balls to show your face, then you know my email...but methinks you do not have any...and well you are not worth the 2 points.

Answer 1

Generally, I am happy with the current Supreme Court. I don't always agree, but then again, a Roberts Court probably would not have issued that awful ruling on the taking of private property (Kelo v. City of New London) in complete ignorance of the Constitution's plain language.

1) To which case are you referring? It's hard to render a reasonable opinion (I might agree with your opinion!) without knowing the facts behind the case.

2) The Executive branch is responsible for enforcing the laws passed by the Legislative branch. If it won't do the job that Congress intended, Congress can force the issue through further lawmaking or by threatening not to authorize/fund one of the President's favored programs.

3) Unlike Congress (and President Bush, who signed McCain-Feingold), the Roberts Court took the time to read the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." (Amendment I). Congress does not have the authority to overrule the Constitution; only an approved consitutional amendment can restrict the freedom of speech or press. It doesn't matter whether a corporation, labor union, not-for-profit, or an individual is paying for political advertisements -- Congress has no power to restrict political ads. Where do the 4 dissenting Justices find any such power?

Answer 2

Yes, these are all excellent, Constitutionally-sound decisions.

You have heard of the Constitution, right? Try reading it sometime. Pay special attention to the 10th Amendment and reflect on what its ramifications are.

The first case is especially funny. People want to sue the government over an unfounded belief that government charity through a nominally religious organization violates the 1st amendment (it doesn't), but fail to see that ALL federal charity is unconstitutional. It's appalling really.

Answer 3

I thank GOD every day that the Supreme court has finally returned to a constructionist foundation.

Basically I do NOT bewlieve judges should legislate from the bench. the are NOT elected officials. If you want to change the law, then do it the way our governmetn was designed to do it.

Otherwise why put up the show of a democratic form of govt at all?

Answer 4

it's pretty obvious you haven't got a clue as to what really happens in the supreme court or the real world effects of their decisions...you are however, comically ignorant and that is entertainment enough for me...thanks alot!...oh, and by the way, i AM waiting for this 'absolute majority' you seem so afraid of...

Answer 5

All i will say is thank God I easily have medical well being coverage. in any different case now all and sundry who would not have medical well being coverage get to pay taxes and that incorporates the detrimental. What approximately how Obama PROMISED that the middle classification and the detrimental would not have their taxes raised. wager it fairly is yet another promise Obama will could interrupt.

Answer 6

I absolutely refuse to be mad that Supreme Court overruled Congress based solely on that criteria.

The Supreme Court is not, and is not supposed to be, beholden to the will of the people.

Answer 7

It is interesting that a school district can limit the speech rights of students, but Congress can't limit the speech rights of big corporations to elect members of Congress itself.

Answer 8

Yeeeeeeeeesssssssssssss! Rock on Judge Roberts!

Answer 9

YES!
I am delighted the likes of Ruth Bader Ginsburg (lib) who championed Eminent Domain, where the govt can sieze your home to make room for another damn mall... Is finally told to shut the hell up and stop ruining this country.
What? Killing 10,000 babies a day does not satisfy your liberal illness?

Answer 10

As far as flooding the airwaves with political ads is concerned, it's our first amendment right to freedom of speech. Corporations can enjoy this right as much as any individual can.