The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Redlemon · 06-23-2005, 08:10 AM

"The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled today that..."

Actually, it doesn't matter what they decided. I'm not posting here to discuss the merits of any individual case. What bothers me, every time I hear the above quote in a news story, is that the nine theoretically greatest legal minds in the United States are split down the middle on an issue.

Of course, a decision has to be made one way or the other. It isn't a jury trial, where you need a unanimous decision to convict. But it still bothers the heck out of me. I wish that there had to be more consensus before a decision was made. Or would that just be decision making by the minority?

Is there a better way?

Mephisto2 · 06-23-2005, 08:20 AM

As an outside observer, I think the US approach, where interpretation of a written constitution and case law (methodology of which a great deal has been inherited from British law) is a great, but imperfect, system.

Perhaps you could opt for a greater majority, but that's up to the people to decide in a referendum, is it not?

Mr Mephisto

scout · 06-23-2005, 08:44 AM

The latest 5-4 decision is perhaps one of the scariest rulings they have issued for awhile. Think you own your home, think again.....

Gatorade Frost · 06-23-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

The latest 5-4 decision is perhaps one of the scariest rulings they have issued for awhile. Think you own your home, think again.....

Yeah, especially since it goes against everything the constitution stands for.

Lebell · 06-23-2005, 08:51 AM

I too am disturbed by the latest ruling.

I honestly don't know what I would do if I were one of the home owners being evicted for a developer to make money.

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 08:53 AM

This is exactly how I feel:

"The five most liberal justices on the court made up the majority, once again proving that today's left is utterly devoid of any principle other than ensuring massive, all-encompassing, ever-growing government power. In this case, they'll gladly side with huge corporations who collude with state and local government to screw powerless people out of the homes and property they've owned for generations. The corporations get cheap land below market value, and the local city council members get more tax money to throw around to win votes."

^From my favorite libertarian: Radley Balko on his blog the Agitator.

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the most controversial issues coming out 5-4. I certainly don't like this decision, and frankly haven't like much of what the Supreme Court has done to damage our freedoms and enhance the governments power of late. I think I'm ok with the methodology though. The balance will hopefully change...the sooner the better, and eventually these punches in the face of what makes this country so great will be over turned. The more federalist the court becomes the better.

Some here once said:

Since when has the constitution been a tool to protect the government from the people? It is actually supposed to be an assurance of protecting the people from the government.

It is clearly being used as the former of late with collusions from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.

This decision wasn't all that unexpected...but damn, I am so sad right now, that it actually happened.

-bear

Redlemon · 06-23-2005, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scout

The latest 5-4 decision is perhaps one of the scariest rulings they have issued for awhile. Think you own your home, think again.....

(ahem) Discuss that in a separate thread, please. (/ahem)

Not whether the majority is liberal, or conservative. Not government vs. people.

Just the mechanics of slim majorities. Please, I don't enter TFP Politics frequently. I'm trying to keep this discussion focused.

Elphaba · 06-23-2005, 09:35 AM

I believe it to be the original intention of the founding fathers to allow one vote to determine the direction of a decision. When interpretation of a law is easily done, that matter never makes it to the Supreme Court where a 9-0 vote would be anticipated.

It's the difficult decisions that the supreme's accept to hear. Each one of the jurists arrives to the court with a body of experience and a belief in how to interpret the constitution, and they vary in their opinions accordingly.

seretogis · 06-23-2005, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

(ahem) Discuss that in a separate thread, please. (/ahem)

Not whether the majority is liberal, or conservative. Not government vs. people.

Just the mechanics of slim majorities. Please, I don't enter TFP Politics frequently. I'm trying to keep this discussion focused.

I have bumped this thread for eminent-domain-evil-discussion-purposes.

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 11:06 AM

I think slim majorities show how divided the nation is. If there were absolutely no merit to the cases brought before the Supreme Court then they wouldn't be brought forth that far. The lower courts would have ended the case and/or the SC review would never have put it on the docket if there wasn't a foundation to the law.

A bigger majority would have been nice, but I have a feeling on some of these close cases (and almost all of them are by 5-4 or 6-3 margins) it's more political grandstanding from the dissenters who once a majority was reached could say..... well I disagree.... but nothing I can do. However, had the majority been needed they would have been in it.

Obviously there are laws that need interpreted and judges go by how they determine the laws read.

On a total side note: this is not a left or right issue both sides have taken advantage of this from the beginnings of our country. If you don't like the laws then vote to take them off the books.

I find it very disingenuous to have one side or the other use this for political gain when their side is equally responsible.

Mantus · 06-23-2005, 11:23 AM

This is democratic politics we are talking about. Nothing in our political system is black and white as we are trying to keep everyone happy and everyone wants something different. Further more people are weak and flawed even those sitting in the supreme court. There are simply too many factors to guard against. This is pretty much as good as it gets.

Elphaba · 06-23-2005, 11:40 AM

A small aside that is specific to the 5-4 split that has become common is that it isn't always the same five vs. the same four. Political ideology of a particular jurist, or which President appointed him or her, does not explain these shifts.

j8ear · 06-23-2005, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

A small aside that is specific to the 5-4 split that has become common is that it isn't always the same five vs. the same four. Political ideology of a particular jurist, or which President appointed him or her, does not explain these shifts.

Actually, in about 95 percent of the decisions...it is exactly the same 5 or the same 4.

Occasionally you get a rogue Thomas who votes against KKK cross burnings or some other anomoly, but for the most part....the votes line up very predicatably.

It really is usually O'Connor who is the swing on a 5-4, and almost exclusively.

She is often considered the most powerful women in the US and by extension therefore the world.

-bear

Elphaba · 06-23-2005, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

Actually, in about 95 percent of the decisions...it is exactly the same 5 or the same 4.

Occasionally you get a rogue Thomas who votes against KKK cross burnings or some other anomoly, but for the most part....the votes line up very predicatably.

It really is usually O'Connor who is the swing on a 5-4, and almost exclusively.

She is often considered the most powerful women in the US and by extension therefore the world.

-bear

Not this time. Sorry for the thread-jack, Redlemon.

Redlemon · 06-23-2005, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Sorry for the thread-jack, Redlemon.

Ah well, I actually got what I wanted in between the other points. You, Pan, and Mantis gave me some good stuff I hadn't thought about, and I feel a little better about the Supreme Court in general.

To jack my own thread, I think it would be a lot of fun to be a Supreme Court judge. I love hearing the transcripts read on NPR. They can be as wise-ass in their questions as they want, and they just shred the lawyers standing in front of them. That's cool.

Elphaba · 06-23-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

To jack my own thread, I think it would be a lot of fun to be a Supreme Court judge. I love hearing the transcripts read on NPR. They can be as wise-ass in their questions as they want, and they just shred the lawyers standing in front of them. That's cool.

They are feistier than those black robes suggest.

pan6467 · 06-23-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

They are feistier than those black robes suggest.

// threadjack for attempted humor\\

"I'm Chief Justice Rehnquist and I am not wearing pants..... and ooo baby baby the black silk feels soooo good.

//end threadjack\\

feelgood · 06-23-2005, 07:47 PM

I think the system is just fine the way it is. It reflects the state of the political situation in the United States. 50% of the people voted for Bush, the other voted for Kerry. The surpreme court is no different than voters, there's the liberals and republicans.

Liberals think this way, the Republican thinks this way. If the US Supreme Court votes 9-0 on every matter, then something wrong because the minority voice is not being heard in the admist of the majority voice.

Most cases don't even make it to the supreme court. Those that do, are cases that are very difficult to judge on and must require close reading and intrepretation of the law.

No system is perfect. As long the human factor is imperfect, we will never create a system that is perfect.

chickentribs · 06-23-2005, 08:51 PM

It's an interesting question... A friend of mine is an attorney who had the honor of arguing in front of the justices once, which makes him much, much cooler than I'll ever be. His opinion of the process is that the difficult decision that gets heatedly fought over is the question of what cases to let in. The guidelines are very broad and Federal Government taking jurisdiction away from the states establishes unblinking precedent with every case that gets accepted.

Once a case is in, these are brilliant legal minds that don't actually disagree a whole lot. But as was mentioned, the legacy that each justice leaves behind is in the legal case studies that demand a well reasoned, balanced verdict is consistant and is well represented on both sides of the issue. I believe opposition papers are a pretty common part of law as a whole, and in particular with judges... My friend B, said he felt like an clerk again doing the grunt work, gathering the research, and mostly being ignored by the justices when he spoke, but loved every minute of it!

Marvelous Marv · 06-24-2005, 01:52 AM

I seem to be the only one who thinks that the Supreme Court dodges most decisions by narrowly crafting them.

Except in this case, where they made a horrible decision.

I hope everyone who disagrees with it writes their congressional representatives so legislation can be written to overcome this travesty.

j8ear · 06-30-2005, 04:43 PM

I was turned onto this particularly impressive essay regarding the Supreme Court with specifics regarding the latest decisions in Kelo and Raich.

From Julian Sanchez at reasononline here

Quote:

A Heap of Precedents
Slippery slopes, stare decisis, and popular opinion
Julian Sanchez

Last week, on the heels of the decision in Raich vs. Gonzales giving federal drug laws precedence over a California medical marijuana statute, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that a home owner has no rights that a city planner is bound to respect.

Neither ruling was particularly surprising to longtime court watchers—the New York Times praised the court in both cases for holding the line against conservative extremists. What was surprising, however, was how unpopular both proved with commentators of all ideological stripes beyond such bastions of elite opinion. Libertarians and conservatives were predictably outraged, but many on the left seemed equally horrified.

Former Milwaukee mayor John Norquist, a liberal Democrat, fumed that Kelo, which held that the city of New London's seizure of homes for a tax revenue- and job-generating office park constituted a "public use" of land, was a "shocking" decision that "opens [eminent domain] up to virtually anything." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, long a critic of the use of eminent domain to aid private development projects, couldn't work up too much indignation, but only because eminent domain abuse has been going on for so long that Kelo seemed a relatively small drop in the bucket. A writer for the liberal blog TPM Cafe, noting that the Kelo majority comprised all the Court's liberal justices, reported feeling as though he were "in Alice of Wonderland: white is black and black is white and I am livid."

Liberal reactions to Raich, which held that federal power over "interstate commerce" extended to homegrown marijuana even when states permitted its medical use, seemed more favorable: The New Republic's editors, sounding a similar note to the Times', called it an "uncontroversial application" of precedent regarding the Commerce Clause—precedent that, by broadly interpreting the government's authority to regulate interstate economic transactions, underpins many programs cherished by liberals.

But here, too, there was scarcely unanimity. The Nation blasted the decision, and commenters on the left who weren't animated by a fear that the Civil Rights Act was in jeopardy seemed as prone as those on the right to find it puzzling that the power to regulate interstate commerce extended to marijuana grown within one state for non-commercial purposes.

This doesn't appear to be just the result of sympathy for the attractive plaintiffs in the cases—terminally ill people seeking to ease their pain and working class homeowners expropriated by large corporations. For many liberals also seemed shocked at the majority interpretations of "public use" and "interstate commerce," even though those who argue that neither decision was particularly radical are perfectly correct. Rather, the disconnect in perception may be explained by an ancient Greek thought experiment.

There's a famous philosophical puzzle, originally attributed to Eubulides of Miletus, known as the sorites paradox or heaps problem. It goes like this: Two or three grains of sand obviously don't constitute a "heap" of sand. And it seems absurd to suppose that adding a single grain of sand could turn something that wasn't a heap into a heap. But apply that logic repeatedly as you add one grain after another, and you're pushed to the equally absurd conclusion that 100,000 grains aren't a heap either. (Alternatively, you can run the logic in the other direction and prove that three grains of sand are a heap.)

It's not a terribly deep puzzle, of course: It simply illustrates that some of our everyday concepts, like that of a heap, are vague or fuzzy, not susceptible to such precise definition. Try to define such concepts in too much detail and absurdity results.

The problem is, concepts like "interstate commerce," "public use," "unreasonable search," and "cruel and unusual" are similarly fuzzy. And stare decisis, the principle that cases are to be decided by reference to previous rulings, means that the Court's interpretation of those rulings looks an awful lot like a process of adding one grain at a time without ever arriving at an unconstitutional heap—an instance of what law professor Eugene Volokh has called an "attitude altering slippery slope." Jurisprudence is all about distinguishing cases, explaining why some legal principle applies in situation A, but not in apparently similar situation B. But if the grains are fine enough—the differences from case to case sufficiently subtle—plausible distinctions become harder to find.

Consider the majority opinions and dissents in these two recent controversial cases. In Kelo, the majority decision is dense with precedent, references to rulings in other putatively analogous cases. It was classic granular logic, carried out by individual steps that all seem reasonable enough. And the progression scarcely seems crazy at any one step.

A road, for instance, is a paradigmatic "public use." But then, what about an irrigation ditch that waters adjoining farmlands? It benefits discrete private individuals, rather than every member of the public, but it doesn't seem mad to say that it sounds pretty much like a road. Often government will provide funding and lease land to a quasi-private entity that runs a museum, under the condition that it be open to the public; does that cease to be a public use because the museum isn't directly run by the government? Is land seizure for a railroad under similar common-carrier regulations a "public use" only if government directly runs the railroad? If not, then what about the seizure of land for the purpose of ameliorating urban blight? The land may be handed over to private developers, but there are other apparent public uses that seem consistent with private ownership. And perhaps the buildings the new private owners erect aren't "open to the public" in the way museums or trains are, but mightn't even more members of the public benefit from the elimination of crime-breeding slums than from another Mondrian exhibit? Once you've gone that far, however, turning over homes for an office building to "create jobs," the plan at issue in Kelo, doesn't seem such a stretch.

The core of the argument in the dissent, on the other hand, looked quite different, going directly to the Fifth Amendment's stipulation that property be seized only for "public use":

[If] predicted (or even guaranteed) positive side-effects are enough to render transfer from one private party to another constitutional, then the words "for public use" do not realistically exclude any takings, and thus do not exert any constraint on the eminent domain power."

The dissent in Raich was heavier on citation, but at its core seemed similarly motivated by a big-picture concern that the ruling "threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach." Both dissents, in other words, step back from the meticulous addition of granules to exclaim: "But it has to be a heap now."

These two decisions prompted outrage not because either was a radical departure from precedent —neither was—but because they called attention to just how many grains of precedent had been piled atop the terms "public use" and "interstate commerce," reaching so far from the common-sense meanings of those terms as to seem preposterous if one is only eyeballing the heap, rather than attending to the process.

Stare decisis is an important guarantor of stability in legal rules: By insisting on like treatment of like cases, it provides people with a more detailed sense of when they're engaged in constitutionally protected conduct than the stripped-down language of the Constitution alone ever could. But legal rules, to be legitimate, should also reflect a shared public understanding. That's not to say the polls must vindicate each particular court ruling, but when stability begins to undermine the public's sense that they understand the most fundamental rules by which they're governed, however, it's a sign that jurists need to be willing to step back and see the heap.

In light of this author's heap anology that last sentence is particularly stunning.

How true. It seems that reality has lost sight of itself in these times. I have come to understand that virtually everything we do as human beings on this planet, in most of our cases the US, can be agrued into having committed a crime. EVERYTHING. It is the selective use of prosecutorial powers which determine who, what and why a 'criminal' is forced to answer for crimes. Public use means private development, Interstate Commerce includes non-commercial, within a single states borders activities, and in another oft glossed over decision 'Gonzales' police departments can not be held accountable for failing to enforce a restraining order. Now, the doctrine of soveriegn immunity is certainly valid, since suing hte government is effectively suing yourself....but my goodness!!! Here are some of the highlights of the Gonzales case:

The estranged husband of Gonzales kidnapped the couple's three kids, and killed them. She'd had a restraining order against him, and repeatedly asked local police for help enforcing it. The record suggests they were less than thorough in their efforts to protect her and her children.

Government is obligated to protect us -- it's one of the few legitimate functions it has...however, it's hard to see how a ruling the other way wouldn't bankrupt every city government in the country. They can't protect everyone. And the more money they spend fighting lawsuits, the less money there is for law enforcment.

Lets look at this another way:

What if this hadn't happened in Colorado but, say, Mississippi. The plaintiff isn't a Hispanic woman, but a black family. And the man who murderers here are a couple of good ol' boys with a history of harassing black families out of the neighborhood. The facts show that the town sheriff, also a rednecked racist, only mustered a half-assed enforcement of the restraining order. He wasn't directly complicit in the murders, but he didn't pay much attention to the harassment, either. The sad outcome is the same. Change your view of the verdict at all?

Or even from the perspective of Washington DC:

Guns of all types are forbidden, here. Pepper spray and mace are illegal, too. Now the Supreme Court has told the city there's no lower threshhold to its obligation to protect, even from a known, proven threat.

They forbid you from protecting yourself. And there's no liability on their part if they fail to protect you. Sort of looks like you're out of luck, doesn't it?

Has this issue been beaten to death on these boards or is anyone still interested in talking about this last term of the Supreme Court?

-bear

Thanks to Julian Sanchez and Radley Balko for some of their work, used in formulating this post.

Elphaba · 06-30-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j8ear

They forbid you from protecting yourself. And there's no liability on their part if they fail to protect you. Sort of looks like you're out of luck, doesn't it?

Has this issue been beaten to death on these boards or is anyone still interested in talking about this last term of the Supreme Court?

-bear

Bear, I have carefully read you post more than once just to make sure I'm not missing your intention. We are allowed to protect ourselves and our property, so who do you claim is forbidding it? A protection order is a legal document only, that ensures penalties for violating the order. It was never intended to guarantee 24/7 protection by law enforcement.

As an aside, my step-daughter from hell got a restraining order, then chose to ignore it by bringing the bastard back into her life. A good man died for that. Would you hold the police responsible?

j8ear · 06-30-2005, 05:42 PM

If that's all you got out of my entire post...or even the tiny part about guns and protecting yourself, IN WASHINGTON DC....then I have certainly failed to convey anything.

Oh well...maybe the next viewer will see something more.

Maybe not,

-bear

martinguerre · 06-30-2005, 08:26 PM

one thing about the SC is that at that level, the dissent is often magnified to an extent that it never reaches at lower court levels. they can inspire work to push that line of reasoning and can occasionally turn around and become the majority decision at a later point.

i'm thinking bowers v hardwick becoming lawrence vs texas...

pan6467 · 07-02-2005, 02:27 AM

I have a question for all you must have a conservative SC - gun rights people.

Purely hypothetical:

Say a county, say Stark, County here in Ohio (but can be any county in any state)the VOTERS vote 75% for gun control. Noone in the county is allowed to own one.

Now Constitutionally, that is illegal, HOWEVER 75% of a population voted for it.

The law works for several months then someone from the NRA, they decide to fight the law and start driving around with a gun rack and so on. Then he decides to sue the county for violating his Constitutional rights.

Goes all the way to the SC............. who should win?

IMHO, the county 75% of the people voted that they didn't want guns in their county, if you don't like that law you move elsewhere or work to get it on the ballot again and try to get it voted down. It is a local law voted for by the locals that know more about their home area than the SC and feds.

However, the NRA (and most are these people who think the SC and feds have too much power) says, fuck the local law the people voted for, we demand our rights.

Now use that for abortion, eminent domain, whatever....... and you people who want the SC to vote your way, are the ones wanting more federal laws and government in your life. If the people of a town vote a certain way, NOONE has the right to overturn that law except the people.

So how is wanting a SC overturning one of those voted on laws, NOT doing exactly what you say you don't want them to do: legislate.

Me personally, I don't give a shit if my county or state population would vote to make one of those things legal or illegal. The beauty of the US is I can freely move, if I believe my locality is getting to confining, I can move elsewhere.

However, when it becomes federal, doesn't matter where I move because the confinement is there also.

Paq · 07-02-2005, 09:59 AM

i wonder if this is now going to become a 6-3 decision in most cases?

Dbass · 07-03-2005, 07:26 PM

Something I've been struggling with is why Justices retire at inopportune times. I can't imagine being a liberal resigning during the reign of a conservative or vice versa...it seems to me it would be worth it to wait it out...I can't say I have any examples, but that just seems like a bad call on the part of the justice....

Elphaba · 07-03-2005, 07:37 PM

Dbass, it's the first retirement in 11 years, and one has been anticipated in every year of the Bush administration. Justice O'Connor is a conservative, although not a strict constitutionalist like Scalia. She is 75 years old and maybe this was simply opportune for her.

RusCrimson · 07-04-2005, 06:58 PM

I think the true problem lies in the fact that the Supreme Court was not intended to be the last word. In fact, through most of America's history it wasn't. I think that enforcement of the judicial orders ought to be left up to the elected branches of the government. There's also the consitutional amendment option, which can be donw without disturbing the current 'peace.'

In the words of Andrew Jackson: "Well, [Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

Dbass · 07-04-2005, 11:01 PM

Good point Elphaba! That shut me up!

Still, that's just the way it sounds, you know? People are always saying "What if so and so retires and they put someone up that overturns Roe v Wade!" and I just wonder whether those guys and gals cling on for that reason or what....just ranting!

Elphaba · 07-06-2005, 05:10 PM

Heh.. Dbass, it wasn't my intention to shut you up.

Any one of the supremes could have retired since 2000 to give Bush a nominee opportunity. That it took five years to see a retirement speaks well for the court IMO. Did you know that O'Connor's husband has Alziemer's. (butchered spelling) I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for a non-political retirement.

RusCrimson · 07-06-2005, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dbass

Good point Elphaba! That shut me up!

Still, that's just the way it sounds, you know? People are always saying "What if so and so retires and they put someone up that overturns Roe v Wade!" and I just wonder whether those guys and gals cling on for that reason or what....just ranting!

Even if there is a staunch pro-lifer placed on the court, Roe still has a 5-4 majority. Before O'Connor retired, it was supported by a 6-3 majority.

Elphaba · 07-06-2005, 07:34 PM

Rus, the chief justice is expected to retire soon who is a staunch conservative. How things turn out is anyone's guess.

Mojo_PeiPei · 07-06-2005, 07:52 PM

Roe v. Wade was upheld by a 6-3, but other issues surrounding abortion weren't that's the only significance of Sandra stepping down. We thought it was pathetic before with the filibuster and "nuclear option". When Bush has to nominate two justices, if not three by the end of his term, they will all be pro-life. I will bet the farm that the Dem's will say that is reason to filibuster, thus conservatives will rattle the sabres and we will all have much to bitch about down the line.

As far as eminent domain goes, I hope I'm not rehashing shit that has been previously said, but I haven't been around in case anybody hasn't noticed (first legitimate employment of my life). At any rate, as far as my constitutional understanding goes, one of the most fundamental things the founding fathers were about was the right to private property. It baffles me as to how and why the Supreme Court is able to rule on the side of something that is a pandora's box of political problems. I mean to me this ruling not only invites the oppurtunity for corruption, it almost encourages it. In my native MN Twin Cities the place is really getting hard core developed especially in the respective down town areas. If some contractors and shit start vying for certain land I won't put it past some fugazee ass state/city council legislating bureaucrates to give them the green light, and that is upsetting.

I mean say what you will about the issues we all constantly bitch about, I'm not delusional, I'm not down with abortion, but I know Roe v. Wade will never get struck down. I know that partial birth abortion and every other issue like that might come into play, but I bet the lower courts will hold on to the decision, the SCOTUS most likely will not hear it. But fucking with property laws really erks me, and to me it's not an issue of left or right, it's just fucked up.

06-23-2005, 08:10 AM	#1 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision... "The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled today that..." Actually, it doesn't matter what they decided. I'm not posting here to discuss the merits of any individual case. What bothers me, every time I hear the above quote in a news story, is that the nine theoretically greatest legal minds in the United States are split down the middle on an issue. Of course, a decision has to be made one way or the other. It isn't a jury trial, where you need a unanimous decision to convict. But it still bothers the heck out of me. I wish that there had to be more consensus before a decision was made. Or would that just be decision making by the minority? Is there a better way? __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

06-23-2005, 08:51 AM	#5 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I too am disturbed by the latest ruling. I honestly don't know what I would do if I were one of the home owners being evicted for a developer to make money. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

06-23-2005, 08:53 AM	#6 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	This is exactly how I feel: "The five most liberal justices on the court made up the majority, once again proving that today's left is utterly devoid of any principle other than ensuring massive, all-encompassing, ever-growing government power. In this case, they'll gladly side with huge corporations who collude with state and local government to screw powerless people out of the homes and property they've owned for generations. The corporations get cheap land below market value, and the local city council members get more tax money to throw around to win votes." ^From my favorite libertarian: Radley Balko on his blog the Agitator. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the most controversial issues coming out 5-4. I certainly don't like this decision, and frankly haven't like much of what the Supreme Court has done to damage our freedoms and enhance the governments power of late. I think I'm ok with the methodology though. The balance will hopefully change...the sooner the better, and eventually these punches in the face of what makes this country so great will be over turned. The more federalist the court becomes the better. Some here once said: Since when has the constitution been a tool to protect the government from the people? It is actually supposed to be an assurance of protecting the people from the government. It is clearly being used as the former of late with collusions from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. This decision wasn't all that unexpected...but damn, I am so sad right now, that it actually happened. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

06-23-2005, 11:06 AM	#10 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I think slim majorities show how divided the nation is. If there were absolutely no merit to the cases brought before the Supreme Court then they wouldn't be brought forth that far. The lower courts would have ended the case and/or the SC review would never have put it on the docket if there wasn't a foundation to the law. A bigger majority would have been nice, but I have a feeling on some of these close cases (and almost all of them are by 5-4 or 6-3 margins) it's more political grandstanding from the dissenters who once a majority was reached could say..... well I disagree.... but nothing I can do. However, had the majority been needed they would have been in it. Obviously there are laws that need interpreted and judges go by how they determine the laws read. On a total side note: this is not a left or right issue both sides have taken advantage of this from the beginnings of our country. If you don't like the laws then vote to take them off the books. I find it very disingenuous to have one side or the other use this for political gain when their side is equally responsible. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

06-23-2005, 07:47 PM	#18 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	I think the system is just fine the way it is. It reflects the state of the political situation in the United States. 50% of the people voted for Bush, the other voted for Kerry. The surpreme court is no different than voters, there's the liberals and republicans. Liberals think this way, the Republican thinks this way. If the US Supreme Court votes 9-0 on every matter, then something wrong because the minority voice is not being heard in the admist of the majority voice. Most cases don't even make it to the supreme court. Those that do, are cases that are very difficult to judge on and must require close reading and intrepretation of the law. No system is perfect. As long the human factor is imperfect, we will never create a system that is perfect. __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

06-23-2005, 08:20 AM	#2 (permalink)
Mephisto2 Junkie	As an outside observer, I think the US approach, where interpretation of a written constitution and case law (methodology of which a great deal has been inherited from British law) is a great, but imperfect, system. Perhaps you could opt for a greater majority, but that's up to the people to decide in a referendum, is it not? Mr Mephisto

06-23-2005, 08:44 AM	#3 (permalink)
scout Psycho	The latest 5-4 decision is perhaps one of the scariest rulings they have issued for awhile. Think you own your home, think again.....

06-23-2005, 09:35 AM	#8 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	I believe it to be the original intention of the founding fathers to allow one vote to determine the direction of a decision. When interpretation of a law is easily done, that matter never makes it to the Supreme Court where a 9-0 vote would be anticipated. It's the difficult decisions that the supreme's accept to hear. Each one of the jurists arrives to the court with a body of experience and a belief in how to interpret the constitution, and they vary in their opinions accordingly.

06-23-2005, 11:23 AM	#11 (permalink)
Mantus lascivious	This is democratic politics we are talking about. Nothing in our political system is black and white as we are trying to keep everyone happy and everyone wants something different. Further more people are weak and flawed even those sitting in the supreme court. There are simply too many factors to guard against. This is pretty much as good as it gets.

06-23-2005, 11:40 AM	#12 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	A small aside that is specific to the 5-4 split that has become common is that it isn't always the same five vs. the same four. Political ideology of a particular jurist, or which President appointed him or her, does not explain these shifts.

06-23-2005, 08:51 PM	#19 (permalink)
chickentribs Addict Location: Mansion by day/Secret Lair by night	It's an interesting question... A friend of mine is an attorney who had the honor of arguing in front of the justices once, which makes him much, much cooler than I'll ever be. His opinion of the process is that the difficult decision that gets heatedly fought over is the question of what cases to let in. The guidelines are very broad and Federal Government taking jurisdiction away from the states establishes unblinking precedent with every case that gets accepted. Once a case is in, these are brilliant legal minds that don't actually disagree a whole lot. But as was mentioned, the legacy that each justice leaves behind is in the legal case studies that demand a well reasoned, balanced verdict is consistant and is well represented on both sides of the issue. I believe opposition papers are a pretty common part of law as a whole, and in particular with judges... My friend B, said he felt like an clerk again doing the grunt work, gathering the research, and mostly being ignored by the justices when he spoke, but loved every minute of it! __________________ Oft expectation fails... and most oft there Where most it promises - Shakespeare, W.

06-24-2005, 01:52 AM	#20 (permalink)
Marvelous Marv Cunning Runt Location: Taking a mulligan	I seem to be the only one who thinks that the Supreme Court dodges most decisions by narrowly crafting them. Except in this case, where they made a horrible decision. I hope everyone who disagrees with it writes their congressional representatives so legislation can be written to overcome this travesty.

06-30-2005, 05:42 PM	#23 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	If that's all you got out of my entire post...or even the tiny part about guns and protecting yourself, IN WASHINGTON DC....then I have certainly failed to convey anything. Oh well...maybe the next viewer will see something more. Maybe not, -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

06-30-2005, 08:26 PM	#24 (permalink)
martinguerre whosoever Location: New England	one thing about the SC is that at that level, the dissent is often magnified to an extent that it never reaches at lower court levels. they can inspire work to push that line of reasoning and can occasionally turn around and become the majority decision at a later point. i'm thinking bowers v hardwick becoming lawrence vs texas... __________________ For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life. -John 3:16

07-02-2005, 02:27 AM	#25 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I have a question for all you must have a conservative SC - gun rights people. Purely hypothetical: Say a county, say Stark, County here in Ohio (but can be any county in any state)the VOTERS vote 75% for gun control. Noone in the county is allowed to own one. Now Constitutionally, that is illegal, HOWEVER 75% of a population voted for it. The law works for several months then someone from the NRA, they decide to fight the law and start driving around with a gun rack and so on. Then he decides to sue the county for violating his Constitutional rights. Goes all the way to the SC............. who should win? IMHO, the county 75% of the people voted that they didn't want guns in their county, if you don't like that law you move elsewhere or work to get it on the ballot again and try to get it voted down. It is a local law voted for by the locals that know more about their home area than the SC and feds. However, the NRA (and most are these people who think the SC and feds have too much power) says, fuck the local law the people voted for, we demand our rights. Now use that for abortion, eminent domain, whatever....... and you people who want the SC to vote your way, are the ones wanting more federal laws and government in your life. If the people of a town vote a certain way, NOONE has the right to overturn that law except the people. So how is wanting a SC overturning one of those voted on laws, NOT doing exactly what you say you don't want them to do: legislate. Me personally, I don't give a shit if my county or state population would vote to make one of those things legal or illegal. The beauty of the US is I can freely move, if I believe my locality is getting to confining, I can move elsewhere. However, when it becomes federal, doesn't matter where I move because the confinement is there also. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

07-02-2005, 09:59 AM	#26 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i wonder if this is now going to become a 6-3 decision in most cases? __________________ Live. Chris

07-03-2005, 07:26 PM	#27 (permalink)
Dbass Crazy	Something I've been struggling with is why Justices retire at inopportune times. I can't imagine being a liberal resigning during the reign of a conservative or vice versa...it seems to me it would be worth it to wait it out...I can't say I have any examples, but that just seems like a bad call on the part of the justice....

07-03-2005, 07:37 PM	#28 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Dbass, it's the first retirement in 11 years, and one has been anticipated in every year of the Bush administration. Justice O'Connor is a conservative, although not a strict constitutionalist like Scalia. She is 75 years old and maybe this was simply opportune for her.

07-04-2005, 06:58 PM	#29 (permalink)
RusCrimson Tilted Location: Massachusetts	I think the true problem lies in the fact that the Supreme Court was not intended to be the last word. In fact, through most of America's history it wasn't. I think that enforcement of the judicial orders ought to be left up to the elected branches of the government. There's also the consitutional amendment option, which can be donw without disturbing the current 'peace.' In the words of Andrew Jackson: "Well, [Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it."

07-04-2005, 11:01 PM	#30 (permalink)
Dbass Crazy	Good point Elphaba! That shut me up! Still, that's just the way it sounds, you know? People are always saying "What if so and so retires and they put someone up that overturns Roe v Wade!" and I just wonder whether those guys and gals cling on for that reason or what....just ranting!

07-06-2005, 05:10 PM	#31 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Heh.. Dbass, it wasn't my intention to shut you up. Any one of the supremes could have retired since 2000 to give Bush a nominee opportunity. That it took five years to see a retirement speaks well for the court IMO. Did you know that O'Connor's husband has Alziemer's. (butchered spelling) I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt for a non-political retirement.

07-06-2005, 07:34 PM	#33 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Rus, the chief justice is expected to retire soon who is a staunch conservative. How things turn out is anyone's guess.

07-06-2005, 07:52 PM	#34 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Roe v. Wade was upheld by a 6-3, but other issues surrounding abortion weren't that's the only significance of Sandra stepping down. We thought it was pathetic before with the filibuster and "nuclear option". When Bush has to nominate two justices, if not three by the end of his term, they will all be pro-life. I will bet the farm that the Dem's will say that is reason to filibuster, thus conservatives will rattle the sabres and we will all have much to bitch about down the line. As far as eminent domain goes, I hope I'm not rehashing shit that has been previously said, but I haven't been around in case anybody hasn't noticed (first legitimate employment of my life). At any rate, as far as my constitutional understanding goes, one of the most fundamental things the founding fathers were about was the right to private property. It baffles me as to how and why the Supreme Court is able to rule on the side of something that is a pandora's box of political problems. I mean to me this ruling not only invites the oppurtunity for corruption, it almost encourages it. In my native MN Twin Cities the place is really getting hard core developed especially in the respective down town areas. If some contractors and shit start vying for certain land I won't put it past some fugazee ass state/city council legislating bureaucrates to give them the green light, and that is upsetting. I mean say what you will about the issues we all constantly bitch about, I'm not delusional, I'm not down with abortion, but I know Roe v. Wade will never get struck down. I know that partial birth abortion and every other issue like that might come into play, but I bet the lower courts will hold on to the decision, the SCOTUS most likely will not hear it. But fucking with property laws really erks me, and to me it's not an issue of left or right, it's just fucked up. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.