# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Supreme Court Stacking

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

21 posts • Page 1 of 1

Lago_AM3P
  Duke
  Posts: 1268
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Lago_AM3P » Thu Jun 28, 2007 2:17 pm

I don't see how this setup of government was even considered remotely fair or healthy to a republic.
So basically, a democratic government that be way different than the one that appointed these people in is still beholden to people with unlimited tenure.
That's pretty much the most undemocratic thing ever. What gives?
Top

Modesitt
  Journeyman
  Posts: 104
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Modesitt » Thu Jun 28, 2007 3:36 pm

The point of the federal courts is that they aren't held accountable to anyone. They can just do what's right without having to worry about what The People will think. The lack of amendments to the constitution is a nice demonstration of how little people are actually annoyed by supreme court rulings.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by tzor » Thu Jun 28, 2007 7:53 pm

Well one could argue that the notion of the Supreme Court striking down laws as “unconstitutional” was an “invention” of the Supreme Court. It was derived from the Constitution but wasn’t explicitly stated as such. The Constitution can and has been amended in the past because of Supreme Court decisions. The best example was Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857.
Although the mechanisms for checks and balances are at times clumsy they do tend to work in the long term. Both in the case of significant court decisions, in the case of significant abuses of the Constitutional amendment process (prohibition being a good example) and even in the abuse of executive power. That’s little consolation to someone the day after Dred Scott v. Sandford or Roe v. Wade or Prohibition but all systems of government has to be seen in the long term not the short term.
We hold these truths to be self evident. That we are endowed with an inalienable right … to put our feet squarely into our mouths, and by popular consent pretend we have done great things.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:02 pm

The current court is kinda sucky because it's just making shit up that's counter to prior rulings. This year will be a dark year in the history of the court, having precedence they should be choosing being thrown away for new, useless rulings.
WTF does 'not enough cause for picking students by race to solve racial inequity' mean, anyhow?
-Crissa
Top

Modesitt
  Journeyman
  Posts: 104
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Modesitt » Fri Jun 29, 2007 12:48 am

> Crissa wrote:The current court is kinda sucky because it's just making shit up that's counter to prior rulings.

THE JEW$ WERE BEHIND 9/11 BU$H = HITLER RETHUGLICANS ARE EVIL REPTILIAN KITTEN EATERS FROM ANOTHER PLANET AND ARE IN LEAGUE WITH THE SHAPESHIFTING CHILD-MOLESTING SATAN-WORSHIPPING LIZARDS FROM OUTER SPACE.
---
To expand on what I very quickly said last time: The courts are deliberately anti-democratic, as was the Senate. The founding father's weren't out to create a perfect democracy, they wanted a society that worked and didn't trust the people to actually do that if left to their own devices. Remember, we didn't always elect Senators. We elected people to the House who elected people to the Senate. That was only changed in the early 20th century. It was deliberately and explicitly done that way in order to insulate the Senate from the uneducated masses. The courts were further selected by the Senate, meaning there were two levels of bureaucracy between the people and the courts.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:08 am

I don't see how the design of the government is at all an answer or even vaguely related to the point that electing Bush has consequences beyond eight years of deficit spending and administrative misconduct.
In other words... Democrats are not like Republicans.
-Crissa
Top

Username17
  Serious Badass
  Posts: 29894
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Username17 » Fri Jun 29, 2007 1:14 am

The Senate is here to block populist leglislation and the Supreme Court is there to keep even the Senate from changing things too quickly. The entire consitution is designed so that it would take 6 years to effect any real change and an entire generation to really ovrhaul how the law is interpretted.
It was another time. A time when most countries were ruled by people who served until they died and the prospect of a government which could completely turn over in less than two years because of a sudden change in public opinion was considered unthinkable.
Of course, back then you couldn't do something really monumentally stupid like spend the GDP of Puerto Rico setting fire to a neutral country on the other side of the world while the antarctic ice pack melted and aused world-wide devastation. The idea that you could actually be in a situation where people had to move quickly to avert world catastrophe and only a complete rejection of the status quo would help was unthinkable. People seriously didn't think about it.
-Username17
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Fri Jun 29, 2007 4:22 am

Except Bush won popular support in his last election. His party had control of the Senate and the House. And now they have control of the Supreme Court. What started a generation ago as the Conservative cause and got control of a branch twenty years after that (Reagan) only now has control (and has had) control of two branches of our government.
It took them twenty years to elect a president. Fourteen more to take the House, another eight to cement it.
Fifty years of work at taking the Court.
Knowing how it works only proves that this is the way Americans want it.
-Crissa
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by tzor » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:35 pm

> Modesitt at [unixtime wrote:1183078086[/unixtime]]That was only changed in the early 20th century. It was deliberately and explicitly done that way in order to insulate the Senate from the uneducated masses.

I'm going to disagree here. (Although will say that a common fear of "democracy" at the time was the masses would take away land property rghts.) It needs to be pointed out that although the Constitution does start off with the words "We the People," it was in fact written by representatives of the state governments. It was in fact written because the simple confederation of states failed miserably.
The Senate, both as a compromise and as a tribute to the fact that sometimes people did actually listen to the rantings of John Adams (who actually was stuck in France for most of the deliberation of the Constitution) who promoted a bi-cameral legislature which he probably got from the Five Nations of the Iriquois, was designed to represent the States. Since it represented the states it is only logial that the governments of the states would appoint its members.

> Crissia wrote:In other words... Democrats are not like Republicans.

Ha ha. Tell me another story. I'll even go one further, not only are Democrats like Republicans, they are even like Whigs. Politics is politics, and all eventually go to the lowest possible standard over time.

> FrankTrollman wrote:The Senate is here to block populist leglislation and the Supreme Court is there to keep even the Senate from changing things too quickly.

No, that is what has become, but it wasn't designed that way. Consider the fillibuster. I'm lazy so here is quote from Wikipedia.

> Wiki wrote:In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question," ending debate and proceeding to a vote. In 1806, Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years,[4] and should be eliminated. The Senate agreed, and thus the potentiality for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
> The filibuster remained a solely theoretical option until 1841, when the Democratic minority tried to block a bank bill favored by the Whig majority by using this political tactic. Senator Henry Clay, a promoter of the bill, threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton rebuked Clay for trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate and he was unsuccessful in eliminating the filibuster with a simple majority vote.

The same can be argued for the evoluion of the Supreme Court t declare laws "unconstitutional." They were not designed into the Consitution but evolved from the working of goverment within the Constitution.
Oddly ehough the House had the use of a filibuster until 1842.
Finally bear in mind that the best laid plans of mice and men often go not as epected. We have had several justices appointed by conseratives who went moderately liberal on the bench and several justices appointed by liberals who went moderately conserative on the bench. Coupled with a general sense among those who seek the position that supreme court precident still has great importance (although they may disagree on what the precident really is) it means that it is difficult to change the course of the ship known as the Supreme Court.
Top

Crissa
  King
  Posts: 6720
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Santa Cruz

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Crissa » Fri Jun 29, 2007 6:03 pm

Look, every time someone says 'Democrats are like Republicans' - the guys who are in control of two branches of our government win.
When will people get it through their thick skulls that when you vote for people who have utter disrespect for basic facts and education - you're going to get what we've gotten the last eight years?
This administration - and the previous four congresses - have not even remotely acted in a way consistent with their words. Let alone 'like' the Democratic Party's platform.
They aren't alike. They not only don't share the same policies, they no longer share the same methods.
-Crissa
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by tzor » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:12 pm

When I say that republicans are like democrats, or vice versa, I don't mean to imply that they are identical. Both sides have different sets of special interests, different sets of pushy lobbyists, both sides of political infighting. And above all both sides have their own unique brand of MORON who attempts to push their party so far to the extreeme that the party looses touch with its own base.
Actually the real three legs of the govermental stool are the House, the Senate and the Executive. Even when there is the same party two of the three legs that doesn't mean much. Very rarely has a party had a 2/3 majority in either house or senate.
And in my not so humble opinion, the anctics in Washington DC are practially boring compared to the vorpal gridlock politics from Albany. I thought it couldn't get much soap opera here until we got our cry baby attourney of a Governor. Here in NY we have our three major deities, the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate and the Governor, the newest deity in Albany.
The courts can go to hell, or rather they can go to themselves because they are about to sue the state because the justices haven't had a pay raise in years. The most recent attempt was attached to the governor's campaign finance reform which was blocked by the Republican led Senate.
The Governor, for his part, is crying all over the state because his reform package wasn't passed and is now saying that he doesn't need the legislature anyway and can run the state by divine governortorial fiat.
And unlike the federal government, the good people of New York state just re-elected the encumbents, they elected the same democrats to the house and the same republicans to the senate.

> Crissa wrote:When will people get it through their thick skulls that when you vote for people who have utter disrespect for basic facts and education - you're going to get what we've gotten the last eight years?

So you admit that we would have gotten the same bullshit had Gore been elected eight years ago? Because if you ever saw his "inconventient truth" you will know that he has a complete disrespect for basic facts and education as well. In fact disrespect for basic facts and education seems to be a hallmark of the democratic party, who seem to prefer a Michael Moore twist the facts until they do a U turn documentary to anything close to the truth.
(And to think that idiot was in the Hamptons recently. We are going to have to take months to disinfect the island as a result.)
I will still insist that we have the smartest person in the White House in recent memory. It's just that Laura isn't as pushy and outgoing as Nancy Regan was.
Top

User3
  Prince
  Posts: 3974
  Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by User3 » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:16 pm

> tzor at [unixtime wrote:1183144372[/unixtime]]So you admit that we would have gotten the same bullshit had Gore been elected eight years ago? Because if you ever saw his "inconventient truth" you will know that he has a complete disrespect for basic facts and education as well.

Actually, An Inconvenient Truth was pretty universally judged by climate scientists as being remarkably accurate. I can't actually think of any other popular science work that got quite so positive a reception from the experts. Just what was your problem with it?
Top

Catharz
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 893
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Catharz » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm

> tzor at [unixtime wrote:1183144372[/unixtime]]
> The courts can go to hell, or rather they can go to themselves because they are about to sue the state because the justices haven't had a pay raise in years.

IIRC most judges in NY state have a high school education or less.
Top

technomancer
  Journeyman
  Posts: 140
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by technomancer » Sat Jun 30, 2007 9:26 am

I like some of the ideas that Heinlin put forth in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, especially the idea that a law must get a 2/3 vote to get kicked up to the senate, and then only a 1/3 vote to veto that sucker. There are a few other things I would like to see done, like something that makes the title of a bill have something to do with the contents of the bill (no bills titled "Let's stop terrorism!" when it actually deals with new ways to secretly funnel money into representatives pockets), and the idea that a bill cannot cover more than one topic (i.e. bullshit riders are no more)
Top

Count Arioch the 28th
  King
  Posts: 6172
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Count Arioch the 28th » Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:35 am

> Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1183140206[/unixtime]]
> When will people get it through their thick skulls that when you vote for people who have utter disrespect for basic facts and education - you're going to get what we've gotten the last eight years?

Prove it. And do it without insulting people who disagree with you, Arturick.
And keep in mind that your words have to be stronger than the actions of the newly elected democratic congress and house, who have yet to produce one single improvement since being in office.
Trixck question, you can say every word in every language, and it won't have the impact of even the smallest action.
I voted democrat last election. And despite winning, we're still killing brown people for fun and profit, we're still heading towards ecological apocalypse, literally nothing has happened.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Top

Modesitt
  Journeyman
  Posts: 104
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Modesitt » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:22 pm

> Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1183203341[/unixtime]]
> I voted democrat last election. And despite winning, we're still killing brown people for fun and profit, we're still heading towards ecological apocalypse, literally nothing has happened.

Off-topic - I thought you were a global warming skeptic?
Top

Maj
  Prince
  Posts: 4705
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by Maj » Sat Jun 30, 2007 11:03 pm

> Modesitt wrote:

> > The Count wrote:we're still heading towards ecological apocalypse

> Off-topic - I thought you were a global warming skeptic?

Personally, I think we're heading that way, too, but not because of global warming.
My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Top

tzor
  Prince
  Posts: 4266
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by tzor » Sun Jul 01, 2007 12:40 am

For the most part I actually like the way the Federal government's legislative branch works. The biggest problem I see is the A B C problem; the house passes A, the senate passes B and the result is a committee that produces C which must then go to an up/down vote without amendments. Often the items in C were not in either A or B in the first place. By the time we get to C the press has stopped looking at the legislation.
Top

shau
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 599
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by shau » Sun Jul 01, 2007 1:50 am

I always find myself surprised that the supreme court doesn't suffer a series of lethal accidents and diseases every time someone new comes to power. They are old and they are lawyers so they probably do not take care of themselves. It would not be that suspicious if four of them kicked off over the course of four years.
Top

shirak
  Knight
  Posts: 468
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
  Location: Thessaloniki, Greece

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by shirak » Sun Jul 01, 2007 8:36 am

> shau at [unixtime wrote:1183254605[/unixtime]]I always find myself surprised that the supreme court doesn't suffer a series of lethal accidents and diseases every time someone new comes to power. They are old and they are lawyers so they probably do not take care of themselves. It would not be that suspicious if four of them kicked off over the course of four years.

There goes my plan to dominate America. You just had to post it on the Internet, didn't you?
Top

fbmf
  The Great Fence Builder
  Posts: 2588
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

### Re: Supreme Court Stacking

- Quote

Post by fbmf » Sun Jul 01, 2007 10:25 am

My internet use has been/is going to be veeery sporadic for the next week, so I'm sorry I didn't get to this sooner.
[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
I have gotten more than one PM about this thread, so I am shutting it down so tempers can cool down.
[/TGFBS]
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

21 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS