It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Conspiracy Theorists Justice Scalia: "this court's threat to American democracy."

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: warpig69
Here is a quot from Scalia in his dissent that I found interesting. Basically he is saying the body of Judges is not a representation of the Union as a whole. Although true, the Judges are not elected to represent the nation, they are there to interpret law. But, what it sounds like to me is he thinks the Supreme Court wields too much power. Or am I just reading to much into what he said?


Judges are selected precisely for their skill as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east- and west-coast States. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single Southwesterner or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today’s social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the Justices in today’s majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.


You got that quite correct! What he's upset about and it was even more demonstrably voiced in the dissent written yesterday in the Obamacare case, is that the Court has moved away from interpreting issues in light of the Constitution to actually legislating from the bench.

I don't have any interest in the Marriage case and I'm not for it or against it, but both cases demonstrate the fact that the Court has been politicized in the extreme and now works only to advance the interests of the Elites and their constituency. When that happens, we continue to advance down the road away from a Representative Republic toward an Oligarchy, much like the one that rules over Mexico. Oddly, this puts the US near the same category of Mexico...its becoming a Colony to be exploited by the Oligarchs.




posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Scalia is certainly opinionated...did he point out that he believes he should appoint his own replacement to the Supreme Court?

I don't recall reading in the Constitution that Justices pick new members.

I suppose he sees his own life slipping away and his life's work will have no lasting meaning; such would upset anyone.

perhaps in his next life, he can serve the United States and not himself.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

Been waiting for the 14th amendment to come up. It's the closest thing to an actual legal argument that can be made to defend this ruling.

History lesson: the 14th amendment was passed in after the Civil War in 1868. It was written to guarantee that blacks would have the same rights as whites. The equal protection clause is part of the 14th amendment. It requires that the federal and state governments apply the same laws - protective and restrictive - to black people as well as white people.

It didn't mean all of sudden states could no longer regulate things under their jurisdiction, like marriage. If the 14th amendment forbids states from defining marriage, it also forbids them from setting a minimum age for getting a driver's license or alcohol consumption.
edit on 26-6-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

My beliefs are similar to yours as I don't have a dog in the fight. But I have always felt the Courts wielded too much power. With the checks and balances of the three branches, it seems like the courts have the upper hand.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

The 14th amendment does not forbid states from regulating things under their jurisdiction -- as long as they aren't discriminating. The 14th amendment does have its origins in the post-Civil War treatment of blacks, but the wording of the amendment talks about ALL citizens having equal protections, not just blacks. Homosexuals are citizens too, just like blacks.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: michaelbrux

In all honesty, the constitution does not say a lot of things. This is why there is so much "fill in the blanks" when it comes to issues. Things become very subjective and the law is upheld or struck based on how the Judge feels towards the issue. There are activist judges on both sides of the spectrum, Scalia in my opinion is no more renegade than others.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: JBRiddle

That's the point the SCOTUS is making. States can't make laws that violate the Constitution, whether the people want it or not. The real threat to America are the dissenting judges trying to rule against EQUAL justice under the law. Not special rights mind you, equal rights.



posted on Jun, 26 2015 @ 01:54 PM
link   
If your State is racist, homophobic, and insist specific religious values on its constituents, you're just as bad as a dictator. Maybe Jade Helm has value after all....



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
Does that automatically make him wrong?

You can take a pot shot, but can you explain where his assessment falls short?


He is wrong. We need diversity that is sorely lacking in congress. People need to come from different economic and professional backgrounds. The court however doesn't need such a thing. It is their job to interpret a law to a legal standard. They are there to act as lawyers, they don't represent the people... we never vote on them in fact. Their job is solely to define what the government can and can't do. Performing that job doesn't require a mixing of religious viewpoints because the process is intended to be godless. It doesn't require living in Kansas or Florida because these are laws that are applied uniformly to all.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
The problem is that as a species we are pretty hateful towards others that are different and given the chance, we would use majority rule as a big club. Using it to beat down minority rights because after all, the majority voted for it. They are a few instances where the government can and should step in. This being one of those cases.

If the government expressly only implimented laws voted for by the people, said country would be a pretty nightmarish place. Democracy should not be used to walk all over minority rights.

Its a shame we haven't progressed to the point that we can be trusted enough to do the right thing and give people equal rights anyway.

I do understand where people are coming from with this though. Its a difficult one but pesonally i think anything that grants equal rights to people is a good thing as long as it's not abused.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I'm going to go with "no, it's not a threat to Democracy...it's the counterbalance to mob rule that the Founders were intended."

The founders left us with mainly a Republic, with elements of a Democracy. They balance each other out. There is a reason the Founders didn't just copy-paste Athenian Democracy.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:21 PM
link   
I can't wait till Scalia has a heart attack and keels over (it should be any day now).

That being said, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, so he's very wrong. And since it's unconstitutional to ban it he's doubly wrong.

What he means, of course, is that when conservatives don't get their way the system is bad and must be broken. We hear this all the time, even on this forum.

Citizens United and letting governments use eminent domain for profit are directly against democracy, yet he has no problems with them.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phallacy
I'm going to go with "no, it's not a threat to Democracy...it's the counterbalance to mob rule that the Founders were intended."

The founders left us with mainly a Republic, with elements of a Democracy. They balance each other out. There is a reason the Founders didn't just copy-paste Athenian Democracy.


I'm really starting to wonder if we are a Republic anymore. In a republic we have 50 States that should be able to vote on what they like and live the way they want to live. When the federal Government starts to dictate at the federal level then we have a democracy instead. The federal level should be extremely selective and limiting in where they rule but today they rule in everything.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328


That being said, a majority of Americans now support gay marriage, so he's very wrong. And since it's unconstitutional to ban it he's doubly wrong.


Is it unconstitutional to limit the number of marriage partners a person can have or set a minimum age in marriage?

My thoughts would be to removed marriage from government period.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero

Is it unconstitutional to limit the number of marriage partners a person can have or set a minimum age in marriage?
(You mean partners at the same time?)
Would you happen to know of any of such cases having progressed to the SCOTUS? They're the ones who would actually decide that.



My thoughts would be to removed marriage from government period
Really? No legal rights (survivorship not being the least) conferred by engaging in a legal contract?

edit on 6/27/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
It's certainly unconstitutional to tell adults they can't bet married, children aren't really citizens in the normal sense, and as such don't have the same rights the rest of us do IMO. I don't see any constitutional basis to outlaw polygamy.



posted on Jun, 27 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero
My thoughts would be to removed marriage from government period.


That's completely unworkable. Are you going to take legal rights away from all of the religious marriages that have already happened? How about the non religious ones? Are you going to tell Christians their marriages now have no legal standing what so ever? Churches can't grant legal status and ultimately all the married couples out there want those benefits.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
...children aren't really citizens in the normal sense, and as such don't have the same rights the rest of us do IMO.


Historically, minority groups around the world have been denied rights using this argument. Are you really going to perpetuate that sort of bigotry toward children, in this era of enlightened Progressivism?? The equal protection clause of the 14th amendment guaranteed everyone the right to everything!
edit on 28-6-2015 by OpenMindedRealist because: (no reason given)







 
9
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join