Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: "Why do we still tolerate the Supreme Court?"

  1. #1

    Default "Why do we still tolerate the Supreme Court?"


    "How much of this corrosion of democracy are we willing to take? And what happens when we put our foot down? Injustices flirts with these questions but ultimately shies away from any definitive answer. But of course, the solution here is obvious: If we want to curb the Supreme Court’s power, all we have to do is ignore it. Issue enough rulings that antagonize both liberals and conservatives, and the court might just castrate itself, leading legislatures in red and blue states alike to start ignoring its proclamations. That’ll be a sad fate for a briefly great institution—but also a happy day for American democracy. At bottom, the Supreme Court exists to enforce the rule of law. When the justices break that rule themselves, the remedy is obvious: The court has got to go...."

    "Given that ambiguous silence, shouldn’t Congress, too, get to play some role in interpreting the Constitution’s majestic generalities? When duly elected representatives of the people find that legislation grants “due process of law” and “equal protection,” shouldn’t that decision be accorded deference by nine unelected judges? And in a constitutional food fight between Congress and the court, shouldn’t the democratic process win out over the labyrinthine legal doctrines dreamed up by lawyers?..."

    "How has the Supreme Court gotten away with so much bad behavior for so long? It has no army to enforce its rulings, no police force to ensure compliance. In pragmatic terms, there are probably three things that keep American law tethered to the court. First, most of us, especially those in government, simply feel like there’s no other option but to follow the justices’ orders...."
    Sadly, I am admittedly one of America's (US of A's) 'ignorant en masse', especially when it comes to the rather more convoluted aspects of what is supposed to be due process... Law & Order, which seems to have much less to do with proper arrangement yet, more to do with command... all the while the political shit-storming that doesn't do well to disguise it's folly and seediness, much less have the good sense to be embarrassed by their antics...

    This article linked above resonates with me, interests and questions I've not seen asked or answered...

    Your thoughts?


    Apologies for my lack of congruency in this thread...

  2. #2


    For all its troubles, the supreme court provides educated and scholarly interpretation of the law on complex issues. They make several hundred rulings a year, the majority of which are unanimous, raise no controversy, and help fix ambiguities or disagreements in poorly written laws. They unfortunately have 1-3 cases a year that seem to spark public outrage.

    The anger at the court, however, is misdirected. It has been part of the U.S. democratic institution from the very beginning. The anger exists because there are complex, difficult decisions to be made and nobody agrees on the right outcome. If the court were gone, people on one or another side would rail at the corruption of Congress, the way that state legislatures can be bought out by special interests, or the unfair kneeling to the so-called "vocal minority."

    There already is democratic process to overrule the Supreme Court: If the court interprets a law in a way that people dislike, their duly ejected representatives in congress can pass a new law telling the court to interpret it differently. This rarely happens because Congress is sharply divided and passes vague laws precisely because they can't Agee on anything more specific

    In the case of constitutional issues, although Congress can't overrule the Court, the people could by passing a constitutional amendment. That's also very rare, however, because the democratic populace doesn't agree on the issues with a large enough majority to amend the Constitution.

  3. #3


    I read through the article you linked to, and will admit I have not read the book that it references. The article, in and of itself, seems to be trying to raise awareness that the decisions that the SCOTUS has made over the years that we might consider to be ill-thought out.

    However, I find some troubling aspects of what is written. One major thing is to remember that the United States of America is not a democracy. It is a constitution-based federal republic. We elect representatives to go to Congress and Senate to represent us. There are fewer and fewer people who remember the basis for Congress having representatives from each state based on population and the Senate just having two representatives from each state.

    The article discusses how the Supreme Court holds the power to strike down laws and that it created that power. The only way that a law is brought before the Court to review is when the rulings of lower courts are challenged. The Supreme Court issues a finding on the Constitutionality of that law. Ruling that it is unconstitutional effectively nullifies that law, as any further attempts to use it now have case law precedent that lower courts can use as a basis for ruling on. This power has been in place in the Constitution from the beginning, it was not created by the Supreme Court.

    Congress already has a huge role in interpreting the Constitution. Congress is the group creating the laws that it feels are appropriate based on our Constitution. Having a democratic process win out is not necessarily what is right--if it was, we may still have Jim Crow laws in the south, and a huge lack of progress in some areas of our country.

    We have a system set in place to govern our country. While it may not be the best system around, we do have a process in place to amend the document that we hold as our ultimate rule of law.

    I felt rather disappointed with the article as it doesn't seem to understand how our governmental system works, something that the author should have learned in middle school.

  4. #4


    there evidence enough to show what happened if country's in the world that throw out there supreme courts judges. the government that do it end up with to much power, witch leads to mess-up country's.
    and we know were that can end up.

  5. #5


    Quote Originally Posted by DBBaby View Post
    there evidence enough to show what happened if country's in the world that throw out there supreme courts judges. the government that do it end up with to much power, witch leads to mess-up country's.
    and we know were that can end up.
    Even though we're both advocating to keep the court, I don't think an argument like this one is appropriate. Marka is not advocating the overthrow of democracy and the Supreme Court is not the sole bastion protecting the U.S. from descent into anarchy or dictatorship.

    Please, to anyone that thinks in these kinds of shortcuts, don't do it. Tinkering with the institutions running a country is too important and too unique to jump straight to hyperbole and unsupported fears.

  6. #6


    sorry I didn't mean to offend anyone
    up here in Canada the governing party has appointed people to are supreme court and are leader is arguing with the members of the court.
    I'm a big advocate for the supreme court myself.

  7. #7


    I'm more than happy to help offend people if we're going to do that....

    Supreme Court is just like regular court with sour cream and tomatoes.

  8. #8


    Our (the U.S.'s) problem does not lie in the Supreme Court of the United States. The dysfunction of the SCOTUS is a symptom of the problem.

    The problem? Congress. It's not really the fault of the current cohort of craven crapwads that run the joint, although they're particularly bad at their jobs. The flaw is a systemic one created by the Founding Fathers in the governmental structure.

    See, they created three "co-equal" branches of government. Trouble is, they didn't actually create them equally. Seriously, look at the ten sections in the Constitution detailing the Legislature, versus the four for the Executive and three for the Judiciary. Hell, they didn't even give the SCOTUS the power to actually overturn an unconstitutional law. It took SCOTUS taking the initiative in Marbury v. Madison to get that sorted. The Founders gave the Congress the most power. This makes sense on some level, given that the Congress is meant to represent the people. The Founders, though, put a whole lot of trust and faith in the fuckwits that would be running the Congress, and it didn't take long for those fuckwits to show us what a terrible terrible idea that was.

    So now, we have a Constitution that grants Congress the power to remove members of the SCOTUS for poor behavior. The Congress is bought and controlled by nothing resembling "We the People," and they're incapable of doing their day jobs properly let alone going after SCOTUS bad behavior. Thus, the SCOTUS runs wild revising the law as they like, openly cavorting with lobbyists, and in some cases being party to active lobbying on issues that will come before them (Justice Thomas, we're looking at you and your wife!). We the People just want shit to get done, so we look the other way when the President does things unilaterally. We don't really even know who's meant to be running half the government apparatus, so we just accept that there are departments like the NSA that'll do whatever they like without any way for We the People to even slow them down.

    I don't know how we fix it. I don't know if it's something constitutional revision can fix (ala adding an amendment to undo Citizen's United and more). I don't know if it'll just work itself out as We the People get increasingly pissed and vote the bums out. I dunno. But I think Congress is the source of the problem.

  9. #9


    The Supreme Court can also revisit laws, and sometimes do over a period of time. Slavery was once legal, and then it wasn't.

  10. #10


    I've enjoyed... that in-between thrilling and painful pit of the gut feeling you get on a really crazy roller-coaster... as I read with some trepidation, the much appreciated replies thus far...

    I can't say for sure on my own behalf... that what I missed (or even understood) in middle-school... is excuse, or really good reason/cause-effect... at any rate.. I really don't understand it... I don't know who's running what... let alone who's accountable, and where any culpability lies...

    The article sparked my interest in generally poking things with a stick... I suspected some bias of some sort, may be in part the particular slant... yet, I really kind of do want to know, or speculate with greater considerations... some of those "what would happen ifs"...

    The stronger viewpoints seem to be anchored in very long ago established perspectives... and with those come their perceptions...

    I really should be asleep right now... I do appreciate and hope for a continuance in the thread... I might actually learn something too... keep at it!

    Thank you,

    And for those who didn't already know... SCOTUS= Supreme Court of the United States

Similar Threads

  1. Redefining "Adult Baby" and "Diaper Lover"
    By Drifter in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 01-Dec-2014, 15:54
  2. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 21-Jan-2014, 02:58
  3. Replies: 30
    Last Post: 04-Aug-2013, 19:23
  4. Are terms like "fetish" and "paraphilia" outdated/unhelpful?
    By cm90210 in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 31-Dec-2012, 21:24
  5. Replies: 99
    Last Post: 23-Jul-2012, 17:43

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.