SwordofGeddo #fundie

SwordofGeddo #fundie rr-bb.com

I was just wondering out of frustration, why do we have the Supreme Court and the judical branch of the government? THey seem to do nothing but bad things to this country. They outlawed school prayer in the 1960s, they legalized abortion in the 1970s, they declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional back in 2003 i think? And many lower courts have forced Gay marriage in states even when the people of those states have voted to keep marriage between a man and a women.

Recently Roberts voted Obamacare was legal as a tax, I feel almost like he was paid off to rule as he did.

Why do we have this part of the government that can made sweeping decrees and laws with the slam of a gavel? Why allow these unelected people to go against the will of citizens, enforcing their own kind of law on all of us without our consent?

Why not just get rid of this problem, and eliminate the judicial branch?

68 comments

old comment by dionysus

Why allow these unelected people to go against the will of citizens, enforcing their own kind of law on all of us without our consent?

To prevent the tyranny of the majority. If 90% of people in the country were Muslim you wouldn't want them to outlaw Christianity, would you? Then you need at least one branch that is unelected and thus is not making decisions simply to stay in office rather than making decisions that are just and Constitutional. Granted, they're still human and make mistakes but at least they're not pressured into those mistakes by populism and pandering.

They outlawed school prayer in the 1960s

Fun fact: it wasn't "dose ebil atheists" or "dem damn muzzies" that sued over school prayer. It was a group of Christians who didn't want to say the prayers of another denomination and blaspheme their version of God in the process. Oh, but it's so much easier to be ignorant and think that a Christian could NEVER fight for freedom of religion. Well, not everyone's like you; not even other Christians.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"They outlawed school prayer in the 1960s"

I'm pretty sure that students can pray all they'd like in any school they happen to be in. They just can't be disruptive about it.

"And many lower courts have forced Gay marriage in states even when the people of those states have voted to keep marriage between a man and a women."

Many states also upheld segregation laws when they voted on them. Majority vote doesn't mean jack shit when civil rights are being violated.

"Recently Roberts voted Obamacare was legal as a tax, I feel almost like he was paid off to rule as he did."

Exactly why would a Supreme Court judge accept a bribe? They're already paid quite well, I would assume, and it's not like they have to worry about job security.

"Why do we have this part of the government that can made sweeping decrees and laws with the slam of a gavel?"

They aren't making "sweeping decrees of law" you idiot.

"Why allow these unelected people to go against the will of citizens, enforcing their own kind of law on all of us without our consent?"

Because what you consent to is, as with the segregation example above, not always the most lawful way to go.

"Why not just get rid of this problem, and eliminate the judicial branch?"

Because you then have anarchy. With no judicial branch of government you have a bunch of laws that can't be upheld--or ruled unjust or unconstitutional, etc--which means you may as well have no laws at all.

old comment by clockworkgirl21

They outlawed school prayer in the 1960s

You can still pray to yourself in school. No one can stop you. Teachers just can't publicly lead a prayer. How many times do we have to go over this?

they legalized abortion in the 1970s

Because women aren't walking uteruses.

they declared anti-sodomy laws unconstitutional back in 2003 i think?

This was back in the 70s. They declared what you did with a consenting adult in private was no one else's business. Only fundies would find an issue with this.

And many lower courts have forced Gay marriage in states even when the people of those states have voted to keep marriage between a man and a women.

Gays don't get to vote on your marriage, why should you get to vote on theirs?

old comment by JSS

Yes, and why do we have the legislative branch? Congress can't get anything done anyway! Why should that get in the way of things?

And what about this Constitution? I mean, did our Founders really want all the handouts it provides? Freedom of religion? What if that religion is not mine to the last punctuation mark? Why should a free society have people who disagree with me?

And why a "President"? Why not a theocratic leader who will tell us all how we should live our lives? This is clearly what the Founders wanted, because it's what I want, and I'm too high up on the pedastal to have any rich air supply rushing to my brain so I could know any better.

I assume this is where you're going with this. Maybe you'll want to study up on your American history, no? Or maybe a stint in a third-world country would remind you of how good you have it "persecuted" here.

old comment by Zagen30

@wcoltd: No, that is not "greater freedom." There are many rights that we consider to be universal, and which cannot be restricted at the state level. Under your logic, it'd be okay for certain states to allow slavery, thus increasing the diversity in law. Guess what; the nation fought a 4-year war over that, and the side angling for states' rights lost.

Also, not everyone has the luxury of being able to just pack up and move whenever they want. That's why basic human rights are guaranteed and decided at the federal level, because to allow a state of rather extreme persuasion to take them away would break sharply with the US' overall conduct of guaranteeing those rights to everyone.

old comment by Zagen30

@whatever: "If a proposed law is unconstitutional, surely those in congress should be aware of that before they waste time trying to pass the law? How can there be senators and state governors who are not already bound by their oaths of office to work within the constitution?"

You really overestimate the integrity of US politics, and probably politics in every country, seeing as how the US is far from the only place where corruptible and immoral people attain power and exploit it.

Beyond Dr. Razark's point about interpreting the Constitution, it's also worth pointing out that many people are willing to actively twist its words to support their goals above everyone else's, and they are perfectly okay with bettering themselves at the expense of others. Who cares if millions of people are harmed by this legislation; I'm getting a nice kickback from a special interest group for supporting it! Or, alternatively, I'm going to support this legislation that agrees with my narrow definition of how the world should be at the expense of all those who don't think like I do, because they're definitely wrong and I'm definitely right.

old comment by dionysus

@wcoltd- You're a poor Vietnamese immigrant living in Texasssippi (I'm making this all up). 88% of the population is white. There is a sizable Vietnamese population in the town you live in and they provide you a social network you wouldn't otherwise have including a job and a community that will take care of you. Now, the 88% of whites suddenly decide that they "don't take kindly to Vietnamese" and they decide that it's okay to lynch Vietnamese people. Okay, you say "I'll just move". Where? This is the only Vietnamese community you know of and your English isn't good enough yet to make your way in an English-speaking neighborhood. Besides, you still owe a lot of money for your house and nobody in the state is going to buy from a Vietnamese. "My life is more important than my property, I'll abandon my house and start over in the state next door", you might say. Well, that state saw the law that Texassippi passed and said "say, that sounds like a brilliant idea!". Now what? Let's say you move to a third state and this state happens to be friendly to Vietnamese. Okay, but now you're still starting with nothing. You don't know any of this state's laws (Is your religion legal here? Are you allowed to drink? What documents do you need? etc.). Even if you moved together as a community, you now have to reestablish the whole community and find jobs and a place to live.

Sure, as a member of a majority and multi-generational, fairly well-off American it's easy to just up and move to another state (though in this market it might be difficult to find a buyer for your home) on a whim but not everyone has the ability or resources to just up and move. My example was an extreme example, obviously, but it demonstrates why certain basic civil rights need to be a federal thing not just a state by state thing.

old comment by katie5000

Why do we have the Judicial Branch? Checks and balances, that's why. They are supposed to be able to stop abuses of power when a veto or a vote has failed. They're far from perfect, though - the SC was responsible for Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and "seperate but equal".

Roberts' vote was interesting and unexpected, which means he's either a more moderate Republican than people thought, or else he's actually attempting to take his job as a non-partisan, objective judge seriously. It's more likely that he voted positively on Obamacare because the idea held some merit, not because he's a traitor or secret leftist or wants to undermine the fabric of US culture.

old comment by ScrappyB

@ whatever

If a proposed law is unconstitutional, surely those in congress should be aware of that before they waste time trying to pass the law? How can there be senators and state governors who are not already bound by their oaths of office to work within the constitution?

Because congress members tend to introduce feel-good legislation that will make them popular with their voter base, but isn't always constitutional. Bonus if it makes their political opponents look bad by opposing the bill. Most often it never gets any further than the bill stage, but occasionally there are enough politicians browbeaten into supporting it to the law stage and it gets shot down by the courts. If it's a federal law or the same issue is raised enough times with state laws, the Supreme Court may step in to deliver the ultimate constitutional smackdown.

The video game industry had to go through this situation with a long series of state laws that set penalties for selling violent games to minors. In spite of every law failing and the states being forced to pay the opposition's legal fees and costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, it kept coming up again and again. The Supreme Court finally ruled laws that treat games differently than movies and books as unconstitutional last year.

old comment by Wehpudicabok

Before I answer the question, I'd like to take a moment to point out that liberals are accused of not understanding or obeying the Constitution. Yet we don't do stuff like this.

The job of the Supreme Court is to make sure that the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President are permitted by the Constitution. They rule not by what is best but by what they understand to be allowed by that document. They are intended to check the power of the other two branches to prevent them overstepping their powers. This is called "judicial review."

Basically, it doesn't matter whether you like them or not; what matters is the Constitution. If you don't like what they rule, pass an amendment. That is, if the GOP will pass anything at all (unlikely).

old comment by

@Whatever: "I kind of imagined the wording of the Constitution left no room for individual interpretations."

Well, if you're still interested, here's a transcript of it and all of the amendments that have been ratified. It's not exactly the most fun read, but it's not like most documents of state are in the first place. Plus, the English language has changed to some extent in the intervening 200+ years, so some of the wording is odd by today's standards.

Even the more airtight sections are still open to "interpretation," such as how many fundies believe that the first amendment, which states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

really means "only my Christian sect has universal rights, and all those other heathens can be discriminated against without impunity, because clearly the Founding Fathers would have never given Muslims the time of day, let alone rights."

old comment by tmarcl

You would think so, at least in a perfect world. The Supreme Court was set up as a check on the Executive and Legislative branches because we don't live in a perfect world. It's not even that laws are intentionally passed to circumvent the Constitution, but because they are thought to be good for the country. Take school prayer for instance - when it was practiced in this country, the belief was that it was a good thing for kids to be taught to pray before school. When it was challenged, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to force kids to pray. Now, the only thing that could reinstate mandatory prayer would be a constitutional amendment (which are not easy to get).

Another good example is Obamacare - in fining people who don't get health insurance, it's legitimate to ask if that's violating people's rights. Again, the Supreme Court acts as a check - in this case, they ruled that it was acceptable as a tax, but it could have gone the other way.

SwordofGeddo #fundie rr-bb.com

68 comments

Confused?