When did the American supreme court start to act as a quasi-lawmaker? Are Americans comfortable with this?

When did the American supreme court start to act as a quasi-lawmaker? Are Americans comfortable with this?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-senate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The can't make any sort of legislation, they can only take away legislation that is against what the government is supposed to stand for. They are the ultimate check and balance to the other two powers and while their admission is often politicized they do not have to worry about any sort of reelection so there is no incentive to be restrained by party boundaries and thus they are far more independent in what they are allowed to believe. The Supreme Court has proven throughout history that they don't have any real ambition towards giving themselves more power and they always eventually correct mistakes that they have made in the past so the limited restrictions on them are fine. The Supreme Court is absolute perfection and I wish I was smart enough to become a justice.

>are Americans comfortable with this?

Most Americans know jack shit about their government's political infrastructure. The majority of US citizens probably don't know what the Supreme Court is.

>The majority of US citizens probably don't know what the Supreme Court is.
You give people too little credit. They might not know the specifics of the supreme court but they at the very least have an idea of what its purpose is and what it does.

Not that there aren't people who are genuinely clueless, I just don't think its fair to call them a majority.

I agree genuinely with your sentiment but there are times in history where the supreme court ignores their duty of interpretting the constitution and acting along political aims.

A recent example is Citizens United vs FEC. If somebody doesn't think that money was changing hands behind that decision then they're breathtakingly naive.

>The can't make any sort of legislation

They can't, but they're allowed to suddenly "notice" after 150 years that this article or that amendment actually legalizes gay marriage for instance. Interpreting the constitution the way they want (usually in accordance with the current zeitgeist) means they have quasi-lawmaker competences.

>We're getting a new conservative justice to replace Scalia

Thank you Jesus from the bottom of my heart.

It's probably the Marbury v. Madison case.

Before that case, the SC wasn't that powerful and it was afraid a too provocative judgment would annoy the President or Congress which would then just ignore the SC. Really, the position of the SC was very weak in the beginnning.

Then M v M happened. Basically the SC gave the President what he wanted but also sneakily stated that its only up to the SC to interpret the law:

>It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.
>So, if a law [e.g., a statute or treaty] be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty. If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law [e.g., the statute or treaty].
>This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions.

I agree but this will just be another instance where it will be rectified in the future. Just like public segregation, alien and sedition acts, Japanese internment, etc.The best part about the court is that they can rectify any mistake they make whenever they recognize it.

Why? you want Citizen's united held up, abortion rights removed, stem cell research effectively crippled again, and get gays up in a roar about having their rights removed as well? Literally nothing good comes out of having a conservative justice at a moment where every issue a conservative justice would want to change would just be backtracking that would be restored in a few years anyway.

why is the american judiciary so politically charged?

it seems ridiculous that the decisions a court makes are predictable 99% of the time simply based upon which party the president who nominated them was in

Filibusters. Filibusters as far as the eye can see.

What's sauce for the Obama goose is sauce for the Trump gander.

Friendly reminder that Bush Jr. appointed Roberts to be a super conservative justice and he's made mostly moderate or even progressive rulings throughout his tenure so far.

That's the thing about being appointed to the Supreme Court: once you're in, you're in. It's always a roll of the dice, particularly on the conservative side where it's easy enough to do a lot of posturing for the gig.

Marbury vs Madison

There's been speculation that the republicans are going to try and eliminate filibusters. The only thing that fuels speculation the contrary is the idea that they won't be the majority forever.

>He makes reasonable compromises on issues
>Somehow this is supposed to make me mad

If government side of that case admitted that siding with them would mean they had the power to regulate books, if they came out during an election and were critical of a candidate.

There is no way they could have sided with the FEC without shredding the 1st amendment

This, John Marshall set the precedent a long time ago

It shouldn't make you mad as an American, no. But there are a lot of people who seem to be under the impression that it's a simple thing to appoint a puppet ideologue that will make partisan rulings for life.

Since Justice Marshall's time at least. Common law systems have generlaly made courts quasi-lawmakers. Hell, our common laws for big things like torts and the obvious criminal acts, murder, arson, burglary, etc. all have far older judicial roots than legislative roots.

>Are Americans comfortable with this?

Most people don't understand or care much. Most attorneys are quite comfortable with it. The people who get the most assblasted about it are the ones who take their high school civics classes way too seriously.

>Majority of the US is Protestant, European descent
>Supreme Court is 3 liberal Jews and the rest Catholics, two of which aren't European

kek, someone tell me to go back to /pol/ please.

Protestants are shit lawyers and therefore shit judges

Protestants are dumb cattle to be commanded by their betters

And how many of those Justices were appointed by Protestant presidents and approved by a greatly Protestant Congress?

How dumb are you.

i listen to a lot of conservashits talk radio and when it seemed like hillary was going to win this guy mark Levin rattled on and on about how supreme Court justices should be have term limits

two days later when trump won he said there's no negotiation about sc justices being for life

he bills himself as a "principled" Constitutionalist

why are conservashits such slimy subhuman cockroaches?

politics is easy when you have such a loyal yet uninformed voter base

Judicial activism usurped rule of law. That's the shortest and most accurate answer.

Honestly I hate that it's a life time appointment. 15 years max.

>why are conservashits such slimy subhuman cockroaches?
That "this is good when I can take advantage of it but bad when I can't" type thinking is quite common. Look at the the electoral college for example.

>t. Lefty "I am enlightened by my own intelligence which I why am throwing literal temper tantrums in the street" /pol/

listen friendo, everyone does everything they can to push their agenda, but just don't bill yourself as "muh principles"

I literally have a pocket constitution on me at all times. It is MUH PRINCIPLES

>A man named ((((Levin))))
>Not knowing which way the wind is blowing

Exactly. It's going to be knee slappingly hilarious when it hits Lefties that they gave Trump the ability to spy on everyone, keep records on everyone, legislate from the bench by proxy via the supreme court, outright refuse to enforce laws he disagrees with, and outright refuse immigration from certain countries for no reason other than "I said so".

The
>Well, what OBAMA wants, OBAMA gets :^)
mentality is going to bite them in the ass so, so, SO hard. It's going to be delicious watching the whole Clinton Foundation crime syndicate fall apart and all the Leftists cry about how pedophilia rings are okay when the profits go towards female politicians.

>Lefties that they gave Trump the ability to spy on everyone
That was going on before both Obama and Bush. When Snowden came out the political response of both parties was weak each more willing to talk about what he did was treason than the overreach of spy agencies.

> It's going to be knee slappingly hilarious when it hits Lefties that they gave Trump the ability to spy on everyone, keep records on everyone
Lefties actually don't like that shit. It's one of the major grievances have with Obama. They didn't like the Patriot Act under Bush either.

>Well, what OBAMA wants, OBAMA gets :^)
I'm not sure you've actually talked to a lefty before. You're probably one of those people that think lefties loved Comey.

>Lefties actually don't like that shit

Nope. Lefties SAY they don't like that shit but won't lift a finger to do anything about it untill all the other shit that they want is done first. They may grumble but Lefties would shut up if a minimum wage increase was dangled in front of their face.

Dworkin.

>but won't lift a finger to do anything about it
There is nothing they can do about it but bitch and complain, and they've done that in spades.

Scalia wasn't good because he was a conservative. Scalia was good because he genuinely attempted to do his job of enforcing the constitution rather than "reinterpret" it to suit a political agenda. I say "attempted" because over the year even he sometimes gave politicized rulings.

There is no guarantee we get a strict constitutionalist like Scalia. We may get an agenda-driven conservative justice, mirroring Ginsburg, that would just rape the constitution to further conservative goals instead of liberal ones.

Both citizen united and Roe vs Wade must be reversed as they clearly have no basis in the constitution. Then a future legislature can reintroduce abortion rights through proper legislation as should have been done in the first place.

You mean with cherrypicked originalist quotes and those times he contradicted himself because of party lines?

>The only time the Patriot Act faced potential repeal was in 2004 by then Democratic candidate Gore
>2004
>Democratic candidate Gore
Wow. I have never seen such a stupidly inaccurate statement in my life. You're either not American or you're barely old enough to be on this site.

not him but just because he clearly confused gore with Kerry doesn't mean you should throw the baby out with the bath water

>president appoints them

Explain this to me. Shouldn't the executive and judiciary be complete independent from each other?

It's not speculation. It has already been done and it was done by the Dems, not even the Reps. The Dems must really regret that decision now.

theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/21/harry-reid-senate-rules-republican-filibusters-nominations

>The only time the Patriot Act faced potential repeal was in 2004 by then Democratic candidate Gore. Bush won, and continued the Patriot Act from his first term.

I admit I had a brain fart there, but the point is that pretty much every major candidate, including outside Trump, indicated support for continuing the patriot act. It has very little to do with lefties, it has to do with Americans, including those on the right, in general not treating it as a major problem in primaries.

Yes, I fucked up. Show me where the rightwinger presidential candidates tried to get rid of the Patriot Act if you're going to claim surveillance is a leftist conspiracy.

Read my post again, it already addresses your post.

Checks and balances dumbass

This post is breathtakingly naive. Not liking a decision doesn't justify the belief that the opposition was bribed.

My man.

He's not a strict constitutionalist though. First of all, originalism isn't the same as constitutionalism. Second of all, Scalia was just very good at mental gymnastics and cherrypicking to make an originalist case for whatever he felt like. He didn't start off with a constitutional analysis to figure out what the constitution had to say. He had a conclusion and supported it with cherrypicked originalism.

I feel that the only way to have good, apolitical justices nowadays would be to nominate AIs (no, not Tay).

You're missing the point that the original user made. Lefties continually complained when they weren't in power. After they got into power, it became a non-issue. Hell, Obama complained about it in the 2008 election and he continually upheld the fucking thing while in office.

He did at times but overall his work is more than acceptable, certainly in comparison with most current justices who don't even pretend to care about the constitution.

Jews and Catholics have been shown by history to emphasize and adhere to following formal laws and dedicate study of them. Protestants--not so much. They just allow anyone to walk in with their own Christian play-do and make anything they want with it.

they're already starting to employ ais in law offices

And righties didn't complain about it at all. Some attack ads by Bush attacked Kerry for trying to repeal the Patriot Act. By far, surveillance is more of a rightwing thing than it is a left wing thing, unless you think the Obama started the Patriot Act.

The alternative would be to fully embrace a politically-driven supreme court and have justices elected (with term limits). The supreme court would become some sort of second senate creating legislation through judicial activism. Of course the separation of powers would be dead but it's already more or less the case with the current court.

and executive orders.

>certainly in comparison with most current justices who don't even pretend to care about the constitution.
Do you actually even read SCOTUS opinions on major cases?

No one ever intended any part of the American government to serve the American people, and it never has, and never will. That's what happens when your Deist "revolution" (read: betrayal) against your Christ-appointed Sovereign is backed by Freemasons and Jewish bankers. Enjoy your steady descent into naked savagery and slavery while your morbidly obese, TV-lobotomized denizens stare hypnotized at the flutterings of your Masonic dishrag, you traitors.

How many layers of brexit are you on?

I'm not British. I'm Canadian.

Still missing the point. The left just uses it to bludgeon the right during election years and then ignores it otherwise because they have no genuine interest in doing away with it. And they didn't start the patriot act because they weren't in charge during 9/11 - but had they been they almost certainly would have.

>And righties didn't complain about it at all
>Rand Paul and Ron Paul do not exist
>Trey Gowdy does not exist

Bush ran attack ads on Kerry saying Kerry would repeal the Patriot Act.

And you can also find lefties that did not win the primary who made a big fuss over it. What's your point?

>they don't have any real ambition towards giving themselves more power
Isn't is mostly Catholic now? Unless I have misunderstood Vatican history its really all they are interested in, more power, and why they would like control of something like the US supreme court.

>There is no way they could have sided with the FEC without shredding the 1st amendment
There is, their decision is basically a self-fulfilling narrative. If they find for FEC then corporations aren't "real" people and the BoR doesn't wholly apply to them. If they find for CU then they are "real" people with the rights that ensue.

books are published by corporations. There are very few forms of modern political speech besides shouting that dont involve corporations at some level.

What do you think the press is?

>jews and catholics
>highly legalistic religions
>protestants
>lol just believe in christ and you're good my man

I've only got one hard-left friend but he organizes protests against everything, including Obama's stance on TPP, surveillance, and drones strikes.

You're advocating making the judicial branch the ultimate word on all domestic law.

>Christ-appointed Sovereign

>all the butthurt generated by this post

The union was a mistake. Protestants have no representation in the highest court of America.

>Judaism
>legalistic

HA, Judaism has core tenets but is more philosophical than anything. Judaism is more "whatever benefits the Jews" than anything. Jews in the Supreme Court runs contrary to US interests.

You're also hilariously retarded.

Modern Canada and Britain are far from being the christian utopias you imagine them to be. Oh and the "Christ-Appointed-Monarchs" of Europe and the UK in particular did jack and shit to stop the secularization of their nations.

we should have listened
please take us back, yuo are grorius empiru

No, you got it all wrong
Rome is all about money, they gave up on power at Vatican II

Irony

This
New Confederacy when?

This guy knows

Wow ever heard of the Spanish Inquisition or the French Wars if Religion? How about the Nakba?
>muh liberals are educated meme
I knew it wasn't true.

>giving him a (You)

You can't ever tell whether someone is a moron or trolling user.

>abortion rights removed
Parental obligation trumps bodily sovereignty.

God is an illusion, faith is a mental illness

Impertinent.

E D G Y
D
G
Y

If truth is edgy, then i want to be edgy

>If truth is edgy, then i want to be edgy

t. Ginsburg

But not wrong

American left sees government as the ultimate force for social justice.

>but not wrong

>The can't make any sort of legislation, they can only take away legislation that is against what the government is supposed to stand for.

U wot m8

Democrats did the nuclear option in 2013 and removed the filibuster for appointments.

Karma's a bitch lmao

Except Roberts was not a radical conservative and has voted conservative 90% of the time.

Court was objectively conservative until 2009 and 2010 when Obama got his picks in.

It's not truth though.