What do we think about the SC decision in Arizona vs the US?
I think they got it about right. States shouldn't have the right to deport; they should be able to verify legal residency of individuals.
Yes they did get it right. Imigration Reform needs to happen.
Was interesting that Judge Sotomayor was one of the judges that upheld the contentious "show me your documents clause". Should take the wind out of some sails.
I was interested in the fact that this clause was allowed to stand because it had not yet been implemented and therefore there were no cases of alleged profiling.
If there are any case, or alleged case, of racial profiling then the justices left room for those specific cases to be brought forward.
I have to think about this conclusion for awhile. Will return to the tread in a few days.
I think whatever the supreme court decides is right, even if I might not totally agree. I always like to believe the court comes down on the side of the constitution, and that is good enough for me.
" I think whatever the supreme court decides is right, even if I might not totally agree. I always like to believe the court comes down on the side of the constitution, and that is good enough for me."
There are plenty of cases that the Supreme Court has gotten wrong like Plessy v. Ferguson. I think it is a little naive to believe they always follow the Constitution. I think you might be setting up an argument when/if they overturn healthcare reform.
Nope frank...I don't believe in abortion. But I do believe that the court spoke according to the law. I don't have to agree with their every decision, but I will not pretend that I am a greater jurist than any one of them. I actually thought they would uphold the Arizona law. Which shows what I know about the law!!
There have been terrible verdicts rendered by the S.C - clearly following public opinion rather than the Constitution and it's honest interpretation. The S.C. today is more highly suceptible to public opinion than in the past 100 years imo.
I will not automatically accept the rulings of any court in the land as unbiased or correct just because they are the highest court in the land and expected to follow the guidelines as outlined by the Constitution.
They are human beings, just like the rest of us. Some of them are more flawed because all of them have more power than the rest of us to affect the individual life of each of us and as a whole - more so than any politician in the long run - so their work related flaws are of far greater consequence to all of us in the long run, I believe (though I can see an argument to that last part).
If it were the case that each justice does the job to the purest, most honest best to his ability and gave votes only following the constitution and it's honest interpretation - then why would both parties of voters be so very concerned with who gets to place the most judges during a Presidential term in office Mrsk?
Why would many people think that the ability to appoint to the Supreme Court was the single most important and certainly powerful move the President can make?
Clearly politics enters into the Supreme Court through the judges, we can only hope that those judges who are appointed have a brain and conscience which freely functions independently from the President who appointed them and the party that looks to them and the biography that will be written about them - and the way they prove it is by voting against the leaning of that same President and/or the party who voted him in at various points during their career.
That happens all the time too, it's how we can figure out who is doing their job and who is abusing their power - by following the vote of each judge over a period of a handful of years over the cases heard. If they always vote according to the politics of the president who appointed them and the party who appointed the same president - then you get a pretty darn accurate picture of who that person is and how honestly he does his job.
If a judge appointed by Obama ruled against the health care reform, I might disagree but I would certainly accept that they were voting as they honestly saw how the constitution applies and not how their party politics apply. The vote would prove the honesty and lack of party politics pressure at the time it was voted, as it would be unpopular with, at the very least, half the citizens who had defended them in conversation when the President gave the nod for the job.
Most certainly would hold true to a judge appointed by any conservative president, also.
They are human and some are more honest than others in how they choose to use their votes.
I would not automatically agree with any Supreme Court ruling. Nor accept it quietly if I thought that it was an abomination to the civil rights of citizens or any citizen - as in the various cases where they clearly did find against the civil rights of a portion of citizens of this country.
Civil rights of all Americans and their ability to freely enjoy their civil right granted to them at birth is a pet peeve of mine- when any one person or group of people attempt to interfer because they can due to power or numbers or popular opinion of the time I am infuriated, insulted, embarrassed and humiliated, as a fellow citizen of this country who enjoys every civil right granted to me at birth.
I would hope that outrage true of every American, but alas and obviously, this is not the case. Not at all.
The S.C justices have also found correct but also very courageous verdicts, sometimes only in understanding the history of the atmosphere of the citizens of our country at that time of the verdict can the people see the very courageousness of the findings.
The system is the best we have available to us, and I certainly think that they are an accurate reflection of who we are as a people. As is the President and the various reps in Washington.
The better we are as a people, the better the representation and leadership we will get - I deeply believe that to be true.
No. I certainly don't think that the Supreme Court always gets it right, nor do I think that when as a majority rule, they always as a majority rule come down on the side of the Constitution, and I also don't think that each does the best he can and decides in purity of the constitution.
And they don't, either.