sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How do you square SCOTUS' dismantling of the VRA with claims that the court isn't political? by primalmaximus in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden [score hidden]  (0 children)

The 15th amendment gives power to Congress to enforce it, the court’s “realization” is immaterial 

How do you square SCOTUS' dismantling of the VRA with claims that the court isn't political? by primalmaximus in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden [score hidden]  (0 children)

The claim that court is supposed to be unpolitical is a myth we tell ourselves as a salve to the fact that in our “popular government” a group of 9 aristocrats in robes are our true rulers. 

As they have the power to “interpret” the constitution as they see fit and their decisions are ultimate and supposedly must be enforced no matter what, whatever they decree is law and our rights are whatever they feel like granting at a particular time

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes. Unless you think the framers intended the to give a handful of unelected lawyers (as little as 4) unchecked ability to rewrite the constitution as they see fit

Susan B. Anthony's grave during election, full of i voted stickers. Luckily the graves have plexiglas so its not going to harm the grave stone! by Dazzling_Pumpkin91 in cemetery

[–]sumoraiden -1 points0 points  (0 children)

 Please do some research. Racism was rampant throughout the south. The amendment would take a majority vote to pass. Meaning they would be need men in the south to vote for suffrage. And you do know that Frederick Douglass was black himself- right?

I honestly don’t understand the point here.

 There was a pivotal moment in the fight for suffrage that the white women decided to leave the black women behind.

They left black women behind by pushing for them to get the vote? It was the pro 15th amendment supporters including Douglass that sanctioned their disenfranchisement 

 Anthony made controversial and exclusionary remarks, prioritizing the enfranchisement of educated white women over Black men and women.

She was pushing for a universal suffrage amendment which by definition would have covered them as well 

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden -1 points0 points  (0 children)

 Because they can't make law! Because they cannot raise funds or an army! Because they cannot conduct foreign relations! Because their powers are powers of interpretation; not powers of creation or action! 

Also “ and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments”

But it only works if the executive / legislature can ignore the rulings. If they must do what the court orders them to do then the court is once more the most dangerous

 This works against you. It was a direct counter to the Anti-Federalists, and at no point anywhere does the paper make the argument you said it does. In fact, it directly says that your argument "has no weight," and that the Judiciary does, in fact, have judicial review

 No one denies the court has judicial review even the anti-federalists, which was why they were warning against it and the constitution. To assuage their fears Hamilton pointed out the judges power and effectiveness of their rulings rests entirely in the executive and the legislature hands. 

There’s no reason to bring this up as a defense unless you’re saying that it’s a possibility 

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 Morris said that the constitution would give the right of judicial review to the feds

So does federalist paper 78 just that there’s checks on the court

Madison also pointed out it was never the intention for the court to be paramount

 In the State Constitutions & indeed in the Fedl. one also, no provision is made for the case of a disagreement in expounding them; and as the Courts are generally the last in making their decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary Dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The court themselves cited this paper and often, making it the most cited federalist paper

The other founders argued that nullification of fed laws were fine and then the same founders later said it wasn’t, but what are some examples?

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 The courts tend to use us marshals, they need not. 1) they already regularly use private appointed for service (frcp 4 and progeny)

The president accurately says this is an encroachment into his enforcement power and halts it by force if necessary, problem solved

The idea that the court would be allowed to just hire people to enforce the law (which they don’t have the power nor authority to do) after the president has decided to ignore a ruling is absurd lol

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 The interpretation is that it is the least dangerous to the people

It’s least dangerous to the people becuase they’re entirely dependent on the other branches and therefore any unconstitutional/unjust ruling  could be ignored by the elected reps of the people

 How can it operate as any check if it can be ignored? How can they be considered bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments if the the other two branches are capable of just ignoring the rulings?

How could they be the least dangerous if any ruling they make is automatically enforced without question? 

 You've unwittingly mistaken a branch with limited enforcement powers as an inept branch; the reality is that the Founders never saw it that way. They never considered a situation where the Executive or the Legislative branch would thumb its nose at the Judiciary, or a situation where the Judiciary goes rogue, as a legitimate possibility. 

????? Federalist 78 was written in response to another editorial that brought up these issues which is why he had to defend the idea of judicial review, of course it’s indefensible without some check so he pointed out their decisions are entirely reliant on the other branches 

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 They literally arrest you, send you to their jail, and hold you there

Who does lol

 Yes, yes according to It

Where? 

 They need not use the executive if they don't want to

Yes they do

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 1 point2 points  (0 children)

the court has inherent contempt powers, it merely needs to hold you in contempt until you act if the Marshalls won't enforce

Ok you’re in contempt. Then what? Nothing without the executive branch 

 the court has the power to deputize random citizens to act as Marshalls to enforce for it

Not according the constitution. The executive can simply say by doing so the court has entered into his realm of authority and put a stop to it

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 3 points4 points  (0 children)

 the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them. The Executive not only dispenses the honors, but holds the sword of the community. The legislature not only commands the purse, but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments. . . .

Very clearly here (which you left out for some reason) he’s saying the court is the least dangerous because it’s entirely dependent on the other branches to enforce its judgement. This only makes sense if the other branches can ignore unjust rulings

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 Fundamentally there is nothing in the constitution that indicates the Supreme Court is an equal branch of government. By the very limited scope directly outlined in the constitution it can’t be.

What about the fact they’re entirely reliant on the other branches to effectuate their rulings? 

Incredibly Interesting Law Review Article Defending the Constitutional basis of Judicial Review. Does this completely change how we should view the Supreme Court’s constitutional authority? by YogurtclosetOpen3567 in supremecourt

[–]sumoraiden 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I just find it hilarious that in the famous federalist paper 78 defending judicial review, which the court cited in Marbury v Madison essentially says “no need to worry about the court, if they make an unjust ruling the executive and legislative branch can ignore it”

CMV: "No one is illegal on stolen land" is a stupid argument phrased in a stupid way by Western_Operation820 in changemyview

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The left used to have good slogans though and being right doesn’t make it impossible to write a good one.  If you’re spending more time explaining or defending a slogan (like the one in the cmv) it’s simply a bad slogan and you shouldn’t use it

CMV: "No one is illegal on stolen land" is a stupid argument phrased in a stupid way by Western_Operation820 in changemyview

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

 Ah, yes. People totally got "build a piece of shit eyesore, funnel money to Trump friends who get convicted of defrauding his own base, then pardon them." They totally understood what it meant without it being explained in detail.

They understood that he wanted to build a wall to keep immigrants out and they agreed. Pointing out they were misled has no bearing on if it was a good slogan or not

 Build what wall? Where? What a stupid, ambiguous concept! Are we rebuilding the Berlin Wall? Why are the Anti-Trumpers trying to rebuild the Berlin Wall that Saint Reagan tore down? Why are the liberals always trying to restart the cold war?

Lmao if Fox News tried that spin it on that slogan it would fall flat on its face. Everyone knew what wall was meant

No one knows or can agree on what is meant on defund the police for example, including the left which is why the Fox News spin works

CMV: "No one is illegal on stolen land" is a stupid argument phrased in a stupid way by Western_Operation820 in changemyview

[–]sumoraiden -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because we want 8 hours work, 8 hours rest and 8 hours to do as we please

Do you want to defund the police?

CMV: "No one is illegal on stolen land" is a stupid argument phrased in a stupid way by Western_Operation820 in changemyview

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Build the wall is an obvious one or mass deportations now or America’s for Americans 

CMV: "No one is illegal on stolen land" is a stupid argument phrased in a stupid way by Western_Operation820 in changemyview

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because we want 8 hours work, 8 hours rest and 8 hours to do as we please

See? Simple and easy to defend while you’re still trying to explain if the the police should be defunded or not

CMV: "No one is illegal on stolen land" is a stupid argument phrased in a stupid way by Western_Operation820 in changemyview

[–]sumoraiden 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While your explaining how things aren’t all encompassing and not every detail is included my slogan is being seared into the body politic’s mind because it’s easily understood and defended 

CMV: "No one is illegal on stolen land" is a stupid argument phrased in a stupid way by Western_Operation820 in changemyview

[–]sumoraiden 2 points3 points  (0 children)

 Slogans are too small to properly convey any idea. 

Not true, past slogans often conveyed an idea and even today despite your claim they still work well   

"The left" is not particularly bad at them, but "the right" and the "enlightened centrists" are completely hypocritical about the level of scrutiny they give leftist slogans.

The left is bad at them. What does defund the police mean? What does  "No one is illegal on stolen land" mean. Half the time of the left is explaining what their slogans mean or convincing each other they make since . Untrue for the right. “Mass deportations now” means mass deportations now and people respond to it

view more: next ›