- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Supreme Court should not have the ability to change society via 5-4 decisions
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:40 am
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:40 am
Return the court to an even number of justices as the Founders intended so that big decisions require a court ‘supermajority’ of at least 5-3. Any issue that results in a 4-4 split should be sent back to the people to discuss via the legislative process.
Either add a justice and get us to 10 on the bench or don’t replace the next one that retires.
We shouldn’t be waiting around with baited breath to see how 5 people redirect the country via these rulings.
Either add a justice and get us to 10 on the bench or don’t replace the next one that retires.
We shouldn’t be waiting around with baited breath to see how 5 people redirect the country via these rulings.
This post was edited on 6/21/18 at 10:44 am
22
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:43 am to weagle99
You post this as if this information is something you just now discovered 
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:43 am to weagle99
quote:
Return the court to an even number of justices as the Founders intended so that big decisions require a court ‘supermajority’ of at least 5-3. Any issue that results in a 4-4 split should be sent back to the people to discuss via the legislative process.
the USSC just reaffirmed that it's still the enabler of authoritarian government. the thing that government hates most is when individuals innovate faster than the government can regulate, and the USSC is the tool the state uses to ensure that individuals can't live freely outside of government regulation for too long
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:43 am to weagle99
Let's say the SCOTUS puts a big hammer blow to public sector unions as almost expected and I think you would support that, are you going to disagree with that because it may be a 5-4 vote?
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:44 am to weagle99
Sad!
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:44 am to Sentrius
Yes. I want the 5-4 ruling eliminated for all subjects.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:45 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the USSC just reaffirmed that it's still the enabler of authoritarian government. the thing that government hates most is when individuals innovate faster than the government can regulate, and the USSC is the tool the state uses to ensure that individuals can't live freely outside of government regulation for too long
What if they put the hammer blow to public sector unions as expected? Are they still the enabler of authoritarian government?
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:45 am to weagle99
quote:
The Supreme Court should not have the ability to change society via 5-4 decisions by weagle99
quote:
should not have the ability to change society
quote:
change society
So making you pay sales tax is changing society? Drama much
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:46 am to weagle99
I've always gotten a kick out of spit SCOTUS decisions. If these matters have to pass constitutional and legislative muster then one side or the other either doesn't fully understand the constitution or legislation or simply doesn't lend credence to either in making their decision.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:46 am to Wtodd
Yes, that is the only 5-4 ruling in history. Obviously.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:46 am to weagle99
You could say the same thing about laws passed 51-49 or EO's signed by one man.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:47 am to Sentrius
quote:
What if they put the hammer blow to public sector unions as expected?
that's like a grain of sand on an entire beach
plus that's intra-government regulation which isn't nearly the same thing as the liberty of individuals outside of the state
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:47 am to FooManChoo
quote:
You could say the same thing about laws passed 51-49 or EO's signed by one man.
Except both of those things can be changed by something other than the Constitutional amendment process.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:48 am to Wtodd
quote:
So making you pay sales tax is changing society?
uh, the last major case on this issue was 25 years ago and it reaffirmed even older law
we have structured our society based on this law and now it's completely upended for no legal reason
so yeah, it has
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:50 am to weagle99
I mostly agree with what you're saying. Only argument I'd have against it is the fact that I consider the weight of a Supreme Court judge decision to be really heavy.
Versus say, a jury who will inevitably have some dimwits with poor judgement.
Versus say, a jury who will inevitably have some dimwits with poor judgement.
This post was edited on 6/21/18 at 10:53 am
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:51 am to FooManChoo
People say this all the time about EO's and laws still have to make it through the other two branches of government. I actually agree with the OP since it seems like the judges mostly follow party lines and hardly ever take the actual constitution into consideration.
Of course I would be happy if it means cases get ruled the way I would like them to but that does not make it the best system.
Of course I would be happy if it means cases get ruled the way I would like them to but that does not make it the best system.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:51 am to weagle99
quote:Dont be a dumbass
The Supreme Court should not have the ability to change society via 5-4 decisions
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:52 am to weagle99
quote:
Any issue that results in a 4-4 split should be sent back to the people to discuss via the legislative process.
Wouldn't that just mean that it would revert back to the decision of the Appeals court? And then that decision would be binding until the issue reached SCOTUS again or was addressed by congress?
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:53 am to Ripley
quote:
I mostly agree with what you're saying. Only argument I'd have against it is the fact that the weight of a Supreme Court judge decision is really heavy.
Versus say, a jury who will inevitably have some dimwits with poor judgement.
Ahem. Kagan, Sotameyer, Ginsburg. Ahem, cough, cough. Just a little something caught in my throat there.
Posted on 6/21/18 at 10:54 am to AuburnTigers
quote:
Dont be a dumbass
The first SCOTUS in 1789 had 6 justices.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News