SUBSCRIBE | NEWSLETTERS | MAPS | VIDEOS | BLOGS | MARKETPLACE | CONTESTS
TRY BACKPACKER FREE!
SUBSCRIBE NOW and get
2 Free Issues and 3 Free Gifts!
Full Name:
Address 1:
Address 2:
City:
State:
Zip Code:
Email: (required)
If I like it and decide to continue, I'll pay just $12.00, and receive a full one-year subscription (9 issues in all), a 73% savings off the newsstand price! If for any reason I decide not to continue, I'll write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing.
Your subscription includes 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Or click here to pay now and get 2 extra issues
Offer valid in US only.


» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Page 1 of 212>>

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]

reply to topic new topic new poll
Topic: American approval of SCOTUS at all time low< Next Oldest | Next Newest >
 Post Number: 1
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 3:07 pm  Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

And for good reason.


WASHINGTON (CBSDC) — On the eve of the United States Supreme Court’s consideration of two hotly contested pieces of legislation regarding marriage equality — the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 — Pew Research Center has revealed that approval ratings for the judicial body are at an all-time low.


Read more:


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013....ime-low


--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 2
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 3:19 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 3:07 pm)
QUOTE
And for good reason.

And, in your personal opinion, what exactly is that "good reason" why a survey of Americans would reveal that, "52 percent of people view the court in a positive way, while 31 percent feel negatively about it"?

--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 3
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 3:22 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Well that would be the growing unfavourable attitude toward SCOTUS rulings of late. My trust in the federal government is in decline generally, as is that of a growing number of Americans. Gallup has it at 46%, while Huffpo has it at 44%. It has been as high as 80% quite some years ago.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 4
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 3:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 3:22 pm)
QUOTE
Well that would be the growing unfavourable SCOTUS rulings of late.

Right.  I understood that from your OP, but what is YOUR opinion? Obviously you place yourself with the 31% who feel negatively, so what's the exact reason for that (i.e. what rulings? and why?)?

I don't find any unfavorable trend with their recent rulings.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 5
nogods Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 6374
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 4:23 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Whether people agree or disagree with the Court's decisions is not all that relevant.  

The court of last resort is designed to be able to make unpopular decisions.  That is why its Judges are not elected by popular vote and why they are appointed for life.

If our Constitution was interpreted based on popular opinion we would just let the congress decide those matters with no interference from the Courts.

The relevant question is: even if you don't like the Court's decisions, do you like our system or are you a commie pinko traitor?
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 6
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 4:29 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

In the last decade, or so, two cases are paramount to me. Bush v. Gore and Citizens united. My opinion you ask, I will always believe that Sandra Day Oconner regretted her vote on Bush v. Gore. She went on to resign her seat at SCOTUS and for sometime was very critical of the Bush administration, giving critical speeches of Bush policies and in one case describing the US presidency as degenerating into dictatorship. I miss her and she was replaced by someone very much to her right.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 7
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 4:35 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE
Whether people agree or disagree with the Court's decisions is not all that relevant.  

The court of last resort is designed to be able to make unpopular decisions.  That is why its Judges are not elected by popular vote and why they are appointed for life.

If our Constitution was interpreted based on popular opinion we would just let the congress decide those matters with no interference from the Courts.

The relevant question is: even if you don't like the Court's decisions, do you like our system or are you a commie pinko traitor?

That was never really the question. But surely americas declining approval of the nations highest court is NOT a good trend. Is someone arguing that it is. And, the op is talking about job approval rating of SCOTUS, and nothing to do with whether or not a system that produced it is flawed.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 8
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 4:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(nogods @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE
Whether people agree or disagree with the Court's decisions is not all that relevant.  

The court of last resort is designed to be able to make unpopular decisions.  That is why its Judges are not elected by popular vote and why they are appointed for life.

If our Constitution was interpreted based on popular opinion we would just let the congress decide those matters with no interference from the Courts.

The relevant question is: even if you don't like the Court's decisions, do you like our system or are you a commie pinko traitor?

I realize that, but was trying to understand the reasoning behind the OP.  As anything, the SCOTUS isn't perfect (nor do I believe it's meant to be), but I think the system in its current state continues to work effectively.

Which is why I questioned what specifically is wrong with it, whether it be recent decisions, structure, perceived partisanship from particular justices, etc. because the OP would seem to imply that it's popularity is in decline for one reason or another.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 9
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43873
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 4:43 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Advertising works and politicians having been running against "activist courts" for several decades.....

I agree Bush v Gore (abandiong decades of the courts own precedents if we want to go to the weeds) and Citizens United (corporations as people? ? ) came to mind for me also.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 10
EastieTrekker Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mar. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 4:44 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:29 pm)
QUOTE
In the last decade, or so, two cases are paramount to me. Bush v. Gore and Citizens united. My opinion you ask, I will always believe that Sandra Day Oconner regretted her vote on Bush v. Gore. She went on to resign her seat at SCOTUS and for sometime was very critical of the Bush administration, giving critical speeches of Bush policies and in one case describing the US presidency as degenerating into dictatorship. I miss her and she was replaced by someone very much to her right.

Thanks.  That's what I was curious about.  For all I knew, your bone to pick could have been the way you think they'll come out on the right to marriage/prop 8 decision.

Those were certainly two controversial cases, and I don't necessarily agree with where they came out either.  However, I'm still confident it's a better system than most and count myself among the 52% who still believe it's doing the job it was intended to do.


--------------
I request all the possible consumer protection organizations, and fight with their injustice.   ???
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 11
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 5:14 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

And I hope they do right on prop 8. And the op wasn't meant to be a criticism of the existence of the Supreme Court at all, indeed our whole democratic experiment/experience has been well above most governing apparatuses throughout history. But the gentlemen that created it were ever consistent in warning of the work it would require to keep it well maintained and shinny. Declining faith in the job approval of the nations highest court cannot be framed as positive. Even if you are in the 52, 46 or 44% who still approve.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 12
hbfa Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 8300
Joined: Feb. 2002
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 5:25 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Low approval for the courts, congress...

And even though his haters are thunderously loud, at least our President's approval rating isn't circling the drain like his predecessor's was.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 13
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26348
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 6:17 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 12:22 pm)
QUOTE
Well that would be the growing unfavourable attitude toward SCOTUS rulings of late. My trust in the federal government is in decline generally, as is that of a growing number of Americans. Gallup has it at 46%, while Huffpo has it at 44%. It has been as high as 80% quite some years ago.

Comparing the supreme court that passed Dred Scott in the 1800s and Korematsu in the 1900's --I can't say that our current court is all that bad...

Maybe the current rise in dissatisfaction reflects more our polarized society than a real decline in the quality of judicial review??

To me, it's always been a mixed bag.  IMHO, in the interest of fairness and general acceptance, the supreme court should issue rulings only upon two-thirds majority.  A 5:4 ruling just confirms a controversial ruling!


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 14
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 6:24 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

No it isn't, hbfa. But even policies aside. There's a major difference between the two, just as men, character and personality. George Bush really was inarticulate, Obama not so at all. George Bush talked like a tough guy, rather thuggish, surely only appealing to under educated Americans. He talked as though he was a C student in college. And he was embarrassing to us on so many occasions when representing us abroad, (thinking about him blowing bread out of his mouth when hollering, "yo, Blair, come here") Obama's just never going to do that. So I think on that level Americans have more confidence in him as a leader.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 15
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 6:27 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 6:17 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 12:22 pm)
QUOTE
Well that would be the growing unfavourable attitude toward SCOTUS rulings of late. My trust in the federal government is in decline generally, as is that of a growing number of Americans. Gallup has it at 46%, while Huffpo has it at 44%. It has been as high as 80% quite some years ago.

Comparing the supreme court that passed Dred Scott in the 1800s and Korematsu in the 1900's --I can't say that our current court is all that bad...

Maybe the current rise in dissatisfaction reflects more our polarized society than a real decline in the quality of judicial review??

To me, it's always been a mixed bag.  IMHO, in the interest of fairness and general acceptance, the supreme court should issue rulings only upon two-thirds majority.  A 5:4 ruling just confirms a controversial ruling!

That I completely agree with. Was it FDR that proposed a change in that?

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 16
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16531
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 6:37 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:27 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 6:17 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 12:22 pm)
QUOTE
Well that would be the growing unfavourable attitude toward SCOTUS rulings of late. My trust in the federal government is in decline generally, as is that of a growing number of Americans. Gallup has it at 46%, while Huffpo has it at 44%. It has been as high as 80% quite some years ago.

Comparing the supreme court that passed Dred Scott in the 1800s and Korematsu in the 1900's --I can't say that our current court is all that bad...

Maybe the current rise in dissatisfaction reflects more our polarized society than a real decline in the quality of judicial review??

To me, it's always been a mixed bag.  IMHO, in the interest of fairness and general acceptance, the supreme court should issue rulings only upon two-thirds majority.  A 5:4 ruling just confirms a controversial ruling!

That I completely agree with. Was it FDR that proposed a change in that?

Although I don't necessarily disagree with the intent of the premise, the implications of a 2/3 majority in the SCOTUS leave some questions.

The Supreme court is the final court of appeals between two parties when constitutionality is in question.  In a case of "X vs. Y", when a 5:4 ruling comes down, are they supposed to say "no decision" between the parties?  Who hears the case after that?  Is the question left in limbo with no resolution for either party?

The system isn't perfect, but I don't think a 2/3 majority really works here.  It isn't a matter of passing bills, it's deciding cases between two parties that need a decision one way or the other.


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 17
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 6:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Go back and work on it some more, would be my answer to that. But you could be right. What's troubling about it is that it would appear that our Supreme Court picked our president in Bush v Gore (essentially) and that by a 5/4 vote, which then means, after all America cast their vote, our president was picked by 1 person. I mean, it could be argued that Sandra Day O'Conner picked our president.

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 18
High_Sierra_Fan Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 43873
Joined: Aug. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:01 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 3:54 pm)
QUOTE
Go back and work on it some more, would be my answer to that. But you could be right. What's troubling about it is that it would appear that our Supreme Court picked our president in Bush v Gore (essentially) and that by a 5/4 vote, which then means, after all America cast their vote, our president was picked by 1 person. I mean, it could be argued that Sandra Day O'Conner picked our president.

Actually the sad and tragic fact is that had Bush had faith in our system of government and let the votes all be counted? He Would Have Won Anyway accordding to a Miami Herald funded recount as I recall.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 19
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16531
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:54 pm)
QUOTE
Go back and work on it some more, would be my answer to that. But you could be right. What's troubling about it is that it would appear that our Supreme Court picked our president in Bush v Gore (essentially) and that by a 5/4 vote, which then means, after all America cast their vote, our president was picked by 1 person. I mean, it could be argued that Sandra Day O'Conner picked our president.

I don't disagree with your assessment of that case.  The fact the Supreme Court was picking the president strikes me as nonsensical anyway, whether it was decided by one vote or two.  Let the votes of the electorate be counted, no matter how painful the "hanging chad" process is.

But I think that's a separate issue than whether a 6:3 vs. a 5:4 decision will provide a final ruling on a case.  I'm not sure that "go back and work on it some more" really solves that.  On some issues, a 6:3 vote isn't gonna happen no matter how we argue that someone should change their mind to make it 6:3.  The negative practical implications of forcing a "super-majority no matter what", IMO, outweigh the downfalls of cases being decided by a single vote.


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 20
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26348
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:38 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 25 2013, 3:37 pm)
QUOTE
Although I don't necessarily disagree with the intent of the premise, the implications of a 2/3 majority in the SCOTUS leave some questions.

The Supreme court is the final court of appeals between two parties when constitutionality is in question.  In a case of "X vs. Y", when a 5:4 ruling comes down, are they supposed to say "no decision" between the parties?  Who hears the case after that?  Is the question left in limbo with no resolution for either party?

The system isn't perfect, but I don't think a 2/3 majority really works here.  It isn't a matter of passing bills, it's deciding cases between two parties that need a decision one way or the other.

No, there are not going to be perfect solutions to this one.

To me, a vote of 5 versus 4 -- while a mathematical majority -- just does not convey any convincing sense of general agreement.  If after fierce debates, hashing and rehashing -- this is all that the court can come to -- then it should simply let stay a lower court's decision -- without comment.  To formally hand down a ruling based on 5:4 really just confirms the still-controversial nature of the case in question.  And when things are really that hotly debated... why risk eroding the prestige and weight of the supreme court with repeated, razor-thin "final" rulings??


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 21
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16531
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:40 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:38 pm)
QUOTE
To me, a vote of 5 versus 4 -- while a mathematical majority -- just does not convey any convincing sense of general agreement.  If after fierce debates, hashing and rehashing -- this is all that the court can come to -- then it should simply let stay a lower court's decision -- without comment.

That's one alternative.  Think that through with all the possible outcomes and see if that's what you really want though, in all cases.  One of those "careful what you wish for" scenarios.

My $.02 anyway.  I don't claim to be right.  Maybe it's a 5:4 decision, as it were. :p


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 22
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26348
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:46 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:40 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:38 pm)
QUOTE
To me, a vote of 5 versus 4 -- while a mathematical majority -- just does not convey any convincing sense of general agreement.  If after fierce debates, hashing and rehashing -- this is all that the court can come to -- then it should simply let stay a lower court's decision -- without comment.

That's one alternative.  Think that through with all the possible outcomes and see if that's what you really want though, in all cases.  One of those "careful what you wish for" scenarios.

My $.02 anyway.  I don't claim to be right.  Maybe it's a 5:4 decision, as it were. :p

Another alternative is to keep the 9 highly-paid justices at it until they come up with a minimum 6:3.  Cushy lodgings and decent meals for a month -- followed by progressively less food and less frequent housekeeping...  Bet they'll be more selective in the cases that they wish to hear -- meaning letting stay the rulings of the lower courts.  And on issues where these justices can barely convince each other -- methinks it's better that they economize on the "final" rulings that they "bestow" on the 300 million of us.


--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 23
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16531
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:50 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:46 pm)
QUOTE

(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:40 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:38 pm)
QUOTE
To me, a vote of 5 versus 4 -- while a mathematical majority -- just does not convey any convincing sense of general agreement.  If after fierce debates, hashing and rehashing -- this is all that the court can come to -- then it should simply let stay a lower court's decision -- without comment.

That's one alternative.  Think that through with all the possible outcomes and see if that's what you really want though, in all cases.  One of those "careful what you wish for" scenarios.

My $.02 anyway.  I don't claim to be right.  Maybe it's a 5:4 decision, as it were. :p

Another alternative is to keep the 9 highly-paid justices at it until they come up with a minimum 6:3.  Cushy lodgings and decent meals for a month -- followed by progressively less food and less frequent housekeeping...  Bet they'll be more selective in cases that they wish to hear -- meaning letting stay the rulings of the lower courts.  And on issues where these justices can barely convince each other -- methinks it's better that they economize on their "final" rulings.

Then we just get a SCOTUS that's as ineffective as Congress, if not worse.

Occasional bad decisions, or no decisions at all with a 15-year waiting list for new cases to be heard because the SCOTUS is in gridlock yet again?  Again, careful what we wish for. :p


--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 24
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26348
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:53 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:50 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:46 pm)
QUOTE

(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:40 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:38 pm)
QUOTE
To me, a vote of 5 versus 4 -- while a mathematical majority -- just does not convey any convincing sense of general agreement.  If after fierce debates, hashing and rehashing -- this is all that the court can come to -- then it should simply let stay a lower court's decision -- without comment.

That's one alternative.  Think that through with all the possible outcomes and see if that's what you really want though, in all cases.  One of those "careful what you wish for" scenarios.

My $.02 anyway.  I don't claim to be right.  Maybe it's a 5:4 decision, as it were. :p

Another alternative is to keep the 9 highly-paid justices at it until they come up with a minimum 6:3.  Cushy lodgings and decent meals for a month -- followed by progressively less food and less frequent housekeeping...  Bet they'll be more selective in cases that they wish to hear -- meaning letting stay the rulings of the lower courts.  And on issues where these justices can barely convince each other -- methinks it's better that they economize on their "final" rulings.

Then we just get a SCOTUS that's as ineffective as Congress, if not worse.

Occasional bad decisions, or no decisions at all with a 15-year waiting list for new cases to be heard?  Again, careful what we wish for. :p

Sequestering and withholding food on Congress might produce marvelous results, actually.   :;):

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 25
GoBlueHiker Search for posts by this member.
Obsessive Island Hopper...
Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 16531
Joined: Jul. 2006
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:54 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:53 pm)
QUOTE
Sequestering and withholding food on Congress might produce marvelous results, actually.   :;):

Now we're talking. :D

--------------
Wealth needs more.  Happiness needs less.  Simplify.

www.RainForestTreks.com
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info WEB 
 Post Number: 26
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26348
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:56 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

Yep.  But in truth, while I prefer to see 6:3 before the SC issues "final" rulings -- the current 5:4 works OK enough.  We have bigger problems that need solving...

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 27
Old Frank Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1210
Joined: Sep. 2007
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 7:58 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

B2W said: "...Maybe the current rise in dissatisfaction reflects more our polarized society than a real decline in the quality of judicial review??..."

Agree.  

As we circle our wagons in all our disparate camps, Folks are increasingly considering political/social  dissenting opinions, be they from SCOTUS or elsewhere, on a much more personal fighting-words level....a soft Balkanization of America seems to be happening, kinda worrisome.


--------------
My favorite compliment: "GrandPa, I've seen other old men, and their faces are a whole lot cruddier than yours is".
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 28
Ben2World Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 26348
Joined: Jun. 2005
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 8:04 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 3:27 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 6:17 pm)
QUOTE

(Montecresto @ Mar. 25 2013, 12:22 pm)
QUOTE
Well that would be the growing unfavourable attitude toward SCOTUS rulings of late. My trust in the federal government is in decline generally, as is that of a growing number of Americans. Gallup has it at 46%, while Huffpo has it at 44%. It has been as high as 80% quite some years ago.

Comparing the supreme court that passed Dred Scott in the 1800s and Korematsu in the 1900's --I can't say that our current court is all that bad...

Maybe the current rise in dissatisfaction reflects more our polarized society than a real decline in the quality of judicial review??

To me, it's always been a mixed bag.  IMHO, in the interest of fairness and general acceptance, the supreme court should issue rulings only upon two-thirds majority.  A 5:4 ruling just confirms a controversial ruling!

That I completely agree with. Was it FDR that proposed a change in that?

If I recall correctly, FDR wanted to add more justices ("packing" the court).

--------------
The world is a book and those who do not travel read only a page.  -- St. Augustine
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 29
Ecocentric Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 5219
Joined: Jun. 2009
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 8:10 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic. Skip to the next post in this topic. Ignore posts   QUOTE

We seem to all agree on what we don't like about recent SCOTUS decisions, and I think in a diverse democracy there is always going to be some people that are unhappy with the current state of government. Congress is fickle, making laws that zig zag through history. Monty is an absolutist when it comes to the second amendment, but might be willing to bear arms against a SCOTUS that rules unfavorably to his political philosophy. Americans are impatient, and that is why the Supremes are appointed for life, to slow policy impulses that might need some consideration. It doesn't mean I like it, but it is the constitution and all.

--------------
"Travel suggestions from strangers are like dancing lessons from God." -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
 Post Number: 30
Montecresto Search for posts by this member.

Avatar



Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
PostIcon Posted on: Mar. 25 2013, 8:34 pm Skip to the previous post in this topic.  Ignore posts   QUOTE


(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 7:46 pm)
QUOTE

(GoBlueHiker @ Mar. 25 2013, 4:40 pm)
QUOTE

(Ben2World @ Mar. 25 2013, 5:38 pm)
QUOTE
To me, a vote of 5 versus 4 -- while a mathematical majority -- just does not convey any convincing sense of general agreement.  If after fierce debates, hashing and rehashing -- this is all that the court can come to -- then it should simply let stay a lower court's decision -- without comment.

That's one alternative.  Think that through with all the possible outcomes and see if that's what you really want though, in all cases.  One of those "careful what you wish for" scenarios.

My $.02 anyway.  I don't claim to be right.  Maybe it's a 5:4 decision, as it were. :p

Another alternative is to keep the 9 highly-paid justices at it until they come up with a minimum 6:3.  Cushy lodgings and decent meals for a month -- followed by progressively less food and less frequent housekeeping...  Bet they'll be more selective in the cases that they wish to hear -- meaning letting stay the rulings of the lower courts.  And on issues where these justices can barely convince each other -- methinks it's better that they economize on the "final" rulings that they "bestow" on the 300 million of us.

That's what I meant when I said, tell them to go back and work on it some more!

--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
Offline
Top of Page Profile Contact Info 
46 replies since Mar. 25 2013, 3:07 pm < Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track This Topic :: Email This Topic :: Print this topic ]


Page 1 of 212>>
reply to topic new topic new poll

» Quick Reply American approval of SCOTUS at all time low
iB Code Buttons
You are posting as:

Do you wish to enable your signature for this post?
Do you wish to enable emoticons for this post?
Track this topic
View All Emoticons
View iB Code



Get 2 FREE Trial Issues and 3 FREE GIFTS
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
The Best Trails in America
YES! Please send me my FREE trial issues of Backpacker
and my 3 FREE downloadable booklets.
Full Name:
City:
Address 1:
Zip Code:
State:
Address 2:
Email (required):
Free trial offer valid for US subscribers only. Canadian subscriptions | International subscriptions