Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

What word in the phrase “shall not be infringed” are you unable to grasp. The United States exists today because the colonists had weapons sufficient to defeat the mighty British Army.

We might have been better off to remain part of Britain! No stupid 2A.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are very close to Supreme Court dictates being ignored. The court has no power to enforce its rulings.
The conservatives justices have proven beyond a doubt that they are only there to push a political agenda. An agenda that has little support and is not inline with mainstream modern thinking. Add in the open corruption and the court has no moral or legal standing.

Their role is NOT to decide if their decisions are in line with "mainstream modern thinking." Their role is to decide cases BASED ON LAW.
If the law needs to be changed, it is up to our legislators to do that. NOT SCOTUS!
You want them to do the role of Congress. They are not Congress. And, they are not politicians.

Several justices obviously decide the outcome that they want based on ideology, and then interpret the law to achieve that outcome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Um, no thanks. I think our way will work just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

What word in the phrase “shall not be infringed” are you unable to grasp. The United States exists today because the colonists had weapons sufficient to defeat the mighty British Army.

This has to be the dumbest post of the day, dummy.

Anonymous wrote:This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Because then it will provide decisions you like as opposed to one’s based on what the constitution requires. Have your representatives work to change the constitution to your liking. That is the path you should be pursuing.

Anonymous wrote:They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

What word in the phrase “shall not be infringed” are you unable to grasp. The United States exists today because the colonists had weapons sufficient to defeat the mighty British Army.

This is why President Biden needs to add many more Justices to the Court. And those Justices need to be chosen with their political ideologies in mind, to offset the 6-7 seat conservative bias the court currently has now.

Because the court we have now is essentially irrelevant. And the decisions they hand down are equally irrelevant, because all those decisions favor the right. Biden needs to add at least 8 progressive Justices to the Court for it to have anything approaching credibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we are very close to Supreme Court dictates being ignored. The court has no power to enforce its rulings.
The conservatives justices have proven beyond a doubt that they are only there to push a political agenda. An agenda that has little support and is not inline with mainstream modern thinking. Add in the open corruption and the court has no moral or legal standing.

Their role is NOT to decide if their decisions are in line with "mainstream modern thinking." Their role is to decide cases BASED ON LAW.
If the law needs to be changed, it is up to our legislators to do that. NOT SCOTUS!
You want them to do the role of Congress. They are not Congress. And, they are not politicians.

Well stated. Sadly the undereducated masses simply can’t grasp this fact. The Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of a how a law is being applied to a particular case. Congress can pass amendments to alter the constitution which must then be approved by 38 states. Like it or not, understand it or not, that is how the process works.

They make up the law. For example they decided to ignore the part about regulation and militia when overruling laws regulating firearms. And pretend that money is the same thing as speech when negating a campaign finance law.

They are a minority faction ruling by fiat.

Anonymous wrote:I think we are very close to Supreme Court dictates being ignored. The court has no power to enforce its rulings.
The conservatives justices have proven beyond a doubt that they are only there to push a political agenda. An agenda that has little support and is not inline with mainstream modern thinking. Add in the open corruption and the court has no moral or legal standing.

Their role is NOT to decide if their decisions are in line with "mainstream modern thinking." Their role is to decide cases BASED ON LAW.
If the law needs to be changed, it is up to our legislators to do that. NOT SCOTUS!
You want them to do the role of Congress. They are not Congress. And, they are not politicians.

Anonymous wrote:I do not understand the argument.

If the court members were not nominated, and gone to the congress for approval, they would be not legitmate, right?

I believe they did that, and are legitimate. I think the writer disagrees with the court decisions, or is a person on the left side. Perhaps I do not understand the word or argument.

This!
Consider the source: "Lawyers, Guns and Money is a politics and culture blog written primarily by a group of eight academics. LGM was founded in May 2004 by David Watkins, Rob Farley, and Scott Lemieux."

Scott Lemieux
University of Washington
Assistant Teaching Professor

Robert Farley, Assistant Professor, Univ. of Kentucky
PhD, University of Washington

David Watkins
Associate Professor, Univ. of Dayton
M.A and PhD, University of Washington

Now, these academics can bemoan the composition of the Supreme Court and the decisions that are made, but they would be better off writing about how our legislature needs to legislate. Many of the issues decided at the Supreme Court level is due to the fact that our Congress has, for years, abdicated their responsibility to the courts to make decisions instead of them making laws.

I remember Ben Sasse's words during the Kavanaugh confirmation. He stated clearly and eloquently what the issues are...

Here is part of a summary from Reason:

But why has every Supreme Court nomination become such an "overblown politicized circus," as Sasse put it? In short, it's because Congress has abdicated its responsibility to be the nation's law-making authority. Deferring to the decisions of unelected bureaucrats and actively handing over power to the executive branch has short-circuited the democratic process, Sasse argued, leaving Americans with the sense that they do not control government, but rather the other way around.

"This transfer of power means that people yearn for a place where politics can actually be done. And when we don't do a lot of big actual political debating here, we transfer it to the Supreme Court, and that's why the Supreme Court is increasingly a substitute political battleground in America," said Sasse. "It is not healthy, but it is what happens, and it's something that our Founders wouldn't be able to make any sense of."

https://reason.com/2018/09/04/ben-sasse-supreme-court-kavanaugh-video/

The best thing, though, is to listen to his words that day. They are powerful and 100 times better than the piece linked above.

They are not legitimate because, among other things, they were appointed by a faction representing only a minority of Americans.

I think we are very close to Supreme Court dictates being ignored. The court has no power to enforce its rulings.
The conservatives justices have proven beyond a doubt that they are only there to push a political agenda. An agenda that has little support and is not inline with mainstream modern thinking. Add in the open corruption and the court has no moral or legal standing.

I do not understand the argument.

If the court members were not nominated, and gone to the congress for approval, they would be not legitmate, right?

I believe they did that, and are legitimate. I think the writer disagrees with the court decisions, or is a person on the left side. Perhaps I do not understand the word or argument.

"No one party or ideological movement has established hegemony over American politics in our moment, but the current Supreme Court represents a coalition that has burrowed itself into the judiciary in the hope that it can reshape the political order by judicial fiat even as it loses at the ballot box.
---
What’s new about this particular configuration of institutional powers is that the Supreme Court is strongly affiliated with a party that is not a dominant governing coalition. The Taney and Fuller and White Courts were awful, but they were awful because they more or less faithfully represented the views of the dominant electoral coalition of their eras. The Roberts Court, conversely, represents the party that has won the popular vote once in the last 8 elections. There’s really no precedent for this in American history. In the short term, there is no viable remedy for it, and any longer-term remedy would require something to overcome the current trend of educational polarization that would allow the Democratic Party to be a dominant enough electoral coalition for Congress to use the formal powers it has to check the power of the judiciary. And needless to say we will need the too-large quantity of Democrats who seem unaware that Earl Warren is dead to fully age out. But as Jamelle also correctly observes, the fact that the Court is in a position to tilt the rules in favor of the minority faction and has already done so in critical atrocities like Shelby County and Rucho makes escaping this anti-democratic feedback loop even harder.

As dismal as the history of the Supreme Court has been, this particular Court is particularly illegitimate, and this needs to be widely recognized among the non-reactionary elements of American politics before anything can be done about it."

Source: https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2023/05/the-supreme-court-legitimacy-and-post-regime-politics