• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

New SCOTUS Judge II: The Wrath of Kavanaugh

River said:
1863 Democrats: without slaves, who will pick our crops?
2018 Democrats: without illegal aliens who will pick our crops?
Click to expand...

I hope you understand that in 1863, the Democratic Party was the right wing of US politics, and Republican Party was progressive centrist?
 
Last edited:
River said:
A better question might be; why are certain groups disadvantaged.
Click to expand...

There are a number of answers to that, but none of them are "because they're lazy bums".

Do you feel like ethnic minorities in this country are less capable of being successful? Or only black people? I'd like you to explain your concept of how one person has more ability to succeed at a job than another based on skin color, and not on work ethic.
Click to expand...

Oh, there you go, ignoring outside factors.

River said:
1863 Democrats: without slaves, who will pick our crops?
2018 Democrats: without illegal aliens who will pick our crops?
Click to expand...

You do realise that the parties have switched sides since then, right?

River said:
In Kavanaugh news, theres this.
Click to expand...

Interesting reaction to the accusations.
 
Minoosh said:
The Supreme Court is a form of majority rule. It's like a mini-Legislature.
Click to expand...

I fear you are correct, in this statement as well as the rest of the post from which that the above quote was taken. However, the correct word is indeed "fear". It isn't supposed to work that way, and if it does work that way, the whole theory of government that led to the creation of three separate branches crumbles.

More people should read John Locke.
 
Minoosh said:
I don't mean to pick you to death. But why do you prefer that?
Click to expand...

As noted in the previous post, it goes back to the theory of government articulated by John Locke and on which our entire constitution is based. The system doesn't work unless that basis is followed.

The core of the problem is that if the court functions as a super-legislature, then what you have is a veto-proof legislature that can do literally anything. A court that can invent rights can also eliminate them. The three branches of government were a way of creating a system of checks and balances that would avoid dictatorship.


Legal principles when it was legal to own slaves dictated that you had a right to hunt down your property, take it home and punish it any way you wanted to.
Click to expand...

Quite so, and if the Supreme Court had abolished slavery without a constitutional amendment, it would have been a grave disservice to the constitution, and would have undermined the government.


After a while, that became unacceptable. Legal principles are built on societal norms. I don't think they exist in some Platonic vacuum. Public opinion has a lot to do with what justices decide, as do practical effects. They're just not supposed to admit it.
Click to expand...

And as societal norms change, there is a process by which the constitution is to be amended to reflect the change. If the court simply decides that it's about time it changed, and grows impatient waiting for the legislature to make the changes that nine people with lifetime appointments think ought to be made, the foundation of the system of checks and balances is destroyed.

Of course practical considerations do influence the judges, and in some ways that is appropriate, and sometimes it is not, but they are human, but the system requires that they set aside those considerations to the best of their ability, and rule only on what the law is, not on what they think the law ought to be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom