[www.latimes.com]

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

Umm, hello? Actually that would be the very POINT of SCOTUS you flippin' genius.





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 08:52PM by beagledave.

He sometimes often baffles me, too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/28/2012 08:57PM by SteveO.

Rand Paul never went to law school. He's an ophthalmologist.

Had he gone to law school, one of the first cases he encountered and probably the most cited case in 1st year law school would have set his head straight on that one.

---

[en.wikipedia.org]

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government...

It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department [the judicial branch] to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so"

Ready to be inflamed? Part of me tends to agree with this statement. The idea that on a given day (today for example) an arbitrary number of people (9 in this case, but there have been more) can decide what the law of the land should be in a particular case, has always struck me as to say the very least, vague.
For example, if someone had been woken up with a real solid humdinger of a bj from their partner and hence was feeling particularly well-disposed towards their fellow men, then their thoughts and final decision might well be swayed.

I feel slightly justified in saying this because, from personal experience, waking up this way rules! Sorry, I meant to say that the lack of certitude expressed here and in the general media of the outcome of this ruling, was a perfect exemplar of how capricious law making can be.

Of course, I'm totally stoked that it went the way it did.

Quote
beagledave
[www.latimes.com]

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

Umm, hello? Actually that would be the very POINT of SCOTUS you flippin' genius.

well, Rand has a little bit of a point. Supreme Court decisions have been overturned. Brown vs Board of Education overturned Plessy vs Fergusson which in 1896 said separate but equal was constitutional. so any given group of justices could give a decision that another group of justices might overturn. that's why it's critical WHO those 9 justices are. props to CJ Roberts for going against the conservative grain on this one.

---

"Success isn't about how much money you make. It is about the difference you make in people's lives."--Michelle Obama

>>The idea that on a given day (today for example) an arbitrary number of people (9 in this case, but there have been more) can decide what the law of the land should be in a particular case, has always struck me as to say the very least, vague.

sometimes an arbitrary decision is better than none.

also, the constitution can be amended. its just a lot of work.

---

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so."

I think it was 5, not a couple.

just one made a difference between 5.4 and 4-5, so doesn't even need to be a couple

---

Kooper's Flute Thing cover

[www.freethegrapes.org]

norwegian wood reality TV

[www.youtube.com]

Every blessed candidate, and perhaps 75-90% of voters need to retake those classes.

I've been thinking that Justice Roberts did a very conservative thing by essentially sending the whole issue back to the voters. The outcome of not only the presidential race but the congressional races will very much determine the future of the Affordable Care Act and the voters will get to make those decisions in a few months.

What Paul said is not so unreasonable. Though not a well nuanced opinion, he was simply disagreeing with the constitutional interpretation. What's found constitutional today may well be found not constitutional at a later time.

If you were there at the time and declared Roger Taney's decision "that Congress had no authority to restrict the spread of slavery into federal territories" was not constitutional, you'd have been correct. It was not constitutional except at that time and place it was.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/29/2012 05:41AM by RgrF.

Quote
RgF
...What's found constitutional today may well be found not constitutional at a later time.

[Dredd Scott] was not constitutional except at that time and place it was.

Reversing decisions is extremely rare: people cite Plessy, but I'll bet that even well-informed individuals can seldom cite another. It is more common for the court to erode the effect of a decision over long periods of time.

Dredd Scott was never overturned, and remained the law of the land until abrogated by the 14th Amendment. It was bitterly unpopular in some regions of the country, rather like Rowe v. Wade is today.

Quote
RgrF
What Paul said is not so unreasonable. Though not a well nuanced opinion, he was simply disagreeing with the constitutional interpretation. What's found constitutional today may well be found not constitutional at a later time.

To the extent that that is what he may have intended, then it is true but it's so trivial that it is hardly worth mentioning. You could say that about every court decision.

I think he intended something more, though. I think he believes that there IS ONE CORRECT interpretation in a metaphysical sense; e.g., in the same way that he probably thinks that there are things that are metaphysically morally right (not contingent on something else - just right in and of itself). And, of course, the metaphysically correct interpretation is the one he favors.

Quote
billb
just one made a difference between 5.4 and 4-5, so doesn't even need to be a couple

It took five people to make it so,,
So yes, he has a point....

Quote
J Marston

Quote
RgF
...What's found constitutional today may well be found not constitutional at a later time.

[Dredd Scott] was not constitutional except at that time and place it was.

Reversing decisions is extremely rare: people cite Plessy, but I'll bet that even well-informed individuals can seldom cite another. It is more common for the court to erode the effect of a decision over long periods of time.

Dredd Scott was never overturned, and remained the law of the land until abrogated by the 14th Amendment. It was bitterly unpopular in some regions of the country, rather like Rowe v. Wade is today.

True. I drew that comparison because i believe Roberts didn't want his term as Chief to be associated in history and if in fact the court conservative majority held, that may well have happened. So I think Roberts voted for Roberts and his vote had little to do with his legal philosophy or in fact the merits of the case.

At this point I'm not certain if it makes him a hero or a @#$%&.

edit: to turn a weel into a well.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2012 01:17AM by RgrF.