Breaking! Biden signs executive order on abortion, declares Supreme Court 'out of control'

[Gojira]

They already are and I feel like that's entirely too much authority to nine judges

It's what the Left wants, but what the founders vehemently opposed. They also didn't think it would happen.

They are there to interpret laws against the constitution, not dictate policy. But, as classical Leftism would have it, they want them turned into a fascistic oligarchical body.

Again, we push back even if it means a civil war -- which I pray it does not.

 

[ZNP]

No, that's true. I meant that in a general sense. "Many" would be more accurate, but it included Left and Right alike.

I agree with you. I questioned the narrative shortly after 911 because I knew it didn't make sense and I was attacked like I was trying to protect terrorists.

 

[Billyd]

They already are and I feel like that's entirely too much authority to nine judges

Judges are appointed for life to prevent a group that has gained a political majority from taking the rest of the country for granted.

The Senate are elected for six year terms to prevent one region from placing it's will on the rest of the country.

Representatives are elected for two year terms because the people change their minds more often than their underwear.

One thing is missing from the congress is term limits. Once they are elected to office, they think that they should hold their office for life. Unfortunately, their constituents don't have sense enough to vote the nesters out of office, making them de-facto supreme court justices (at least in their mind)

 

[ZNP]

Judges are appointed for life to prevent a group that has gained a political majority from taking the rest of the country for granted.

The Senate are elected for six year terms to prevent one region from placing it's will on the rest of the country.

Representatives are elected for two year terms because the people change their minds more often than their underwear.

One thing is missing from the congress is term limits. Once they are elected to office, they think that they should hold their office for life. Unfortunately, their constituents don't have sense enough to vote the nesters out of office, making them de-facto supreme court justices (at least in their mind)

Yes it is like a pendulum. The house, the senate and the President are designed to prevent the whole thing from becoming unbalanced. But even so they know that every 100 years it will be unbalanced, hence the 9 justices are the keel that keeps us from tipping over.

 

[Billyd]

Yes it is like a pendulum. The house, the senate and the President are designed to prevent the whole thing from becoming unbalanced. But even so they know that every 100 years it will be unbalanced, hence the 9 justices are the keel that keeps us from tipping over.

What most people forget is that if they don't like a SCOTUS ruling, they have the option of amending the constitution to change the basis of the opinion.

 

[ZNP]

What most people forget is that if they don't like a SCOTUS ruling, they have the option of amending the constitution to change the basis of the opinion.

They didn't forget that. First they tell us that 65% of the country supports abortion. If that were true it would be easy to pass an amendment. The minute this is overturned they flip out because they know they were lying about the 65%.

 

[Billyd]

IMHO, nothing has changed to prevent the congress or the president from passing an abortion law. The only thing that would have prevented that from happening would have been a ruling from SCOTUS that life begins at conception. That would make abortion murder. I pray for that day to come.

 

[Bluesproverb]

Congress can codify abortion, i.e make it a federal law. This has been in the works for awhile now.

https://www.congress.gov/search?q={"congress":["117"],"source":"all","search":"women's health protection act"}

Congress can also override a SCOTUS ruling.
https://theintercept.com/2020/11/24/congress-override-supreme-court/

 

[Gojira]

I agree with you. I questioned the narrative shortly after 911 because I knew it didn't make sense and I was attacked like I was trying to protect terrorists.

Ya know, I was 100% behind the Afghanistan invasion, maybe 70% behind the Iraq invasion. I sort of / kind of felt that maybe we ought to wait until we're done in Afghanistan (thinking it would only be a few years at the time), and then start massing at Saddam's borders.

We are all attacked or mocked from time to time for our opinions. You're not alone brutha.

 

[Gojira]

Congress can codify abortion, i.e make it a federal law. This has been in the works for awhile now.

https://www.congress.gov/search?q={"congress":["117"],"source":"all","search":"women's health protection act"}

Congress can also override a SCOTUS ruling.
https://theintercept.com/2020/11/24/congress-override-supreme-court/

Congress and the president can also decide on the constitutionality of a measure. But, I do believe a federal abortion law can be challenged. And, even if all three branches came down on the states to force them to legalize abortion, they can still civilly disobey. I mean, there comes a point where you ought not obey certain laws. Meschach (spelling??) and crew showed that. So did MLK. Rosa Parks. In our own Declaration of Independence it is stated that we have the right to push back on any government that becomes tyrannical.

 

[Dude653]

In 1847 the supreme Court decided that black people were not citizens
It's almost as if that's too much authority to give 9 judges

 

[Gojira]

In 1847 the supreme Court decided that black people were not citizens
It's almost as if that's too much authority to give 9 judges

Well, what it does show is that no system is perfect. As Federalist 51 says, if men were angels, they would not need government (I think my thought is right, but my paraphrase is wrong). Anyway, you get my point.

But, the SCOTUS were never meant to have dictatorial power.

I'm reading a book called "Original Intent" by David Barton. Folks, if you want an education on the founders' intent for the constitution in general, the 1st amendment in particular, and the founders' actual faith, I recommend this book. It is almost like a reference book, there are so many footnotes. But, they really back up what they say with fact after fact after fact. Actually, too many facts. I've had to glaze over some of it because of the sheer number of examples they provide for any given point.

 

[Dude653]

Well, what it does show is that no system is perfect. As Federalist 51 says, if men were angels, they would not need government (I think my thought is right, but my paraphrase is wrong). Anyway, you get my point.

But, the SCOTUS were never meant to have dictatorial power.

I'm reading a book called "Original Intent" by David Barton. Folks, if you want an education on the founders' intent for the constitution in general, the 1st amendment in particular, and the founders' actual faith, I recommend this book. It is almost like a reference book, there are so many footnotes. But, they really back up what they say with fact after fact after fact. Actually, too many facts. I've had to glaze over some of it because of the sheer number of examples they provide for any given point.

Yeah when nine people get to decide what the Constitution means, isn't it a dictatorship?

 

[Bluesproverb]

Yeah when nine people get to decide what the Constitution means, isn't it a dictatorship?

An authoritarian dictatorship.

 

[ZNP]

Yeah when nine people get to decide what the Constitution means, isn't it a dictatorship?

No, it means they are the highest court in the land. If you have trouble with judges making judgements then what is next? Are we going to arrest victims of crime and claim the perpetrators were the real victims? Or are we just going to stop prosecuting crimes? Empty the prisons because if some judge gets to decide who to lock up isn't that a dictatorship?

 

[Bluesproverb]

No, it means they are the highest court in the land. If you have trouble with judges making judgements then what is next? Are we going to arrest victims of crime and claim the perpetrators were the real victims? Or are we just going to stop prosecuting crimes? Empty the prisons because if some judge gets to decide who to lock up isn't that a dictatorship?

Non Sequitur.

 

[Billyd]

Yeah when nine people get to decide what the Constitution means, isn't it a dictatorship?

No. In a dictatorship, the president makes the law, interprets the law and enforces the law, Constitution be damned. In our country we have a set of checks and balances on each branch of the government.

Congress passes a law. The president signs or vetoes the law. Congress then either overrides the veto, or lets it stand.

SCOTUS is not involved in this process at all. It only becomes involved when an injured party brings suit. Their decision is (supposed to be) based on whether the constitution allows the law. If they say the law is unconstitutional, the congress can rewrite the law.

In the United States, any law must be able to pass all three branches, and if it is, the president must enforce it.

 

[Dude653]

No, it means they are the highest court in the land. If you have trouble with judges making judgements then what is next? Are we going to arrest victims of crime and claim the perpetrators were the real victims? Or are we just going to stop prosecuting crimes? Empty the prisons because if some judge gets to decide who to lock up isn't that a dictatorship?

Supreme Court doesn't prosecute crimes so false equivalency much?

 

[ZNP]

Supreme Court doesn't prosecute crimes so false equivalency much?

All judges in all courtrooms regardless of whether it is criminal or civil or federal or appelate or appeal or whatever their jurisdiction, they all have one thing in common they make judgments.

 

[Dude653]

All judges in all courtrooms regardless of whether it is criminal or civil or federal or appelate or appeal or whatever their jurisdiction, they all have one thing in common they make judgments.

And those judgments should represent the will of the people. Just one example, Clarence Thomas has already said he wants to come after same-sex marriage next when 70% of America support same-sex marriage
This lets us know that they do not represent the will of the people