Started By
Message
re: TOS: Where is all the love for the SCOTUS decision?
Posted on 6/30/15 at 2:54 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou
Posted on 6/30/15 at 2:54 pm to DawgsOnTopOfYou
quote:
Oh, and the "unelected officials" thing...that was exactly what was contemplated in the Constitution. It is spelled out pretty clearly there.
So, you refer us to the clearly spelled out wording of the Constitution in order to understand the framers reasoning behind the appointment of Supreme Court justices……but, you want us to ignore and accept it when these unelected supreme deities do the exact opposite?
Shouldn’t the robed supreme beings have to refer to the letter of the law and a strict construction of the Constitution also?. Instead of twisting and contorting and interpreting the lawyerly wording of it in the most absurd dishonest and illogical ways so that they can come to conclusions based on their political views……… like they have done in this case. And hundreds and hundreds of others.
This whole system today is a perverted unrecognizable version of the original intent. The supreme court wasn’t designed to be defacto law-makers or arbiters of final judgements on social issues etc.
Again though. This is a huge victory for big government and busy body control-freak logic. Governments shouldn't be involved in the licensing of anything. Especially marriages. Yet here you have both sides of the gay marriage debate trying to use the power of government to enforce their agenda. No shocker, but as usual, things continue to move in the wrong direction......
2
Posted on 6/30/15 at 3:13 pm to Jefferson Dawg
Posted on 6/30/15 at 3:48 pm to Jefferson Dawg
If SCOTUS is tasked with the job of determining the constitutionality of laws, aren't they then de facto lawmakers in the sense that by striking down a law, they are creating law themselves?
If SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution, isn't it then the result that those interpretations become law and/or effect/nullify existing laws?
All I am saying is that, regardless of whether you agree with their interpretations of the Constitution (of which there are many schools/approaches of doing, strict construction being one of many), by giving SCOTUS this responsibility, they have to make decisions as the propriety of certain laws and interpret the Constitution and, as a result, be lawmakers to a certain extent. But they can only do this in the context of what issue/law/constitutional right is brought before them. For the record, I thought interpreting the ACA penalty provision as a tax was ridiculous when the law itself refers to it as a penalty. There is a fine line to walk between judicial activism and fulfilling their role under the Constitution.
They are to a certain extent constrained by what the issue is before them. At issue wasn't whether the government should be involved in marriage. They had to accept this fact as well as that with this status came certain benefits. They had to rule on the gay marriage issue with these things in mind.
Now whether the government has the authority to license/sanction marriages to begin with would be an interesting case.
If SCOTUS is supposed to interpret the Constitution, isn't it then the result that those interpretations become law and/or effect/nullify existing laws?
All I am saying is that, regardless of whether you agree with their interpretations of the Constitution (of which there are many schools/approaches of doing, strict construction being one of many), by giving SCOTUS this responsibility, they have to make decisions as the propriety of certain laws and interpret the Constitution and, as a result, be lawmakers to a certain extent. But they can only do this in the context of what issue/law/constitutional right is brought before them. For the record, I thought interpreting the ACA penalty provision as a tax was ridiculous when the law itself refers to it as a penalty. There is a fine line to walk between judicial activism and fulfilling their role under the Constitution.
They are to a certain extent constrained by what the issue is before them. At issue wasn't whether the government should be involved in marriage. They had to accept this fact as well as that with this status came certain benefits. They had to rule on the gay marriage issue with these things in mind.
Now whether the government has the authority to license/sanction marriages to begin with would be an interesting case.
This post was edited on 6/30/15 at 3:49 pm
Page 1 of 1
Latest Georgia News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News