By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - How do you feel about the Supreme Court now?

 

?

I trust them more now 5 6.76%
 
Finally modernising 19 25.68%
 
Going in the wrong direction 19 25.68%
 
Still as bad as before 15 20.27%
 
Still great 2 2.70%
 
other 14 18.92%
 
Total:74
Danman27 on 01 July 2015
HBninjaX said:
bad as ever

their job is to uphold the constitution not be pressured by activists to change the law of the land because reasons


Read the 14th ammendment. People were having a right taken away from them without due process, there wasn't anything unconstitutional about the decision. 



Around the Network
generic-user-1 on 01 July 2015
DivinePaladin said:
generic-user-1 said:
Augen said:
If they overturn Citizens United then I'd have a much more favorable view as that decision still baffles me.

no, next will be the right to marry for corporations, because they are the last people who arent allowed to marry people like themself.

What you're describing is pretty much a merger, which is completely legal*

 

*subject to review in some cases for fear of monopoly

nono, a merger is more like a siames twin operation...



HBninjaX on 02 July 2015
Hiku said:
HBninjaX said:
bad as ever

their job is to uphold the constitution not be pressured by activists to change the law of the land because reasons

You think slavery should have been kept too?
The constitution has been changed 27 times. It's not timeless.

it's not the role of the supreme court to change the constitution

also the emancipation proclamation was an executive order.  What the heck are they teaching kids in school these days?  /facepalm



HBninjaX on 02 July 2015
Hiku said:
HBninjaX said:
Hiku said:
HBninjaX said:
bad as ever

their job is to uphold the constitution not be pressured by activists to change the law of the land because reasons

You think slavery should have been kept too?
The constitution has been changed 27 times. It's not timeless.

it's not the role of the supreme court to change the constitution

also the emancipation proclamation was an executive order.  What the heck are they teaching kids in school these days?  /facepalm

I'm sorry, I don't listen to hip hop.

lol touche



bouzane on 02 July 2015

The Supreme Court of the United States will always be a laughing stock after the Citizens United case. Seriously, they can tear down an infinite number of Middle Eastern values in favor of individual liberty but they will always be a joke.



Around the Network
fleischr on 02 July 2015

It's a liberal court



I predict NX launches in 2017 - not 2016

Frogger on 02 July 2015

Wasn't the vote for gay marriage only 5-4? That's pretty shitty. It should have been unanimous.

Other than that, whatever.



BraveNewWorld on 02 July 2015

The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage is one of the worst decisions the court has made in its history. Their sole duty is to interpret the Constitution, but when it comes to marriage, there's nothing to interpret. Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about marriage! In order for the Supreme Court's ruling to be constitutional there needs to be an actual amendment to the Constitution.

Their ruling should have been: 'It's not in the Constitution, therefore it's still up to each state to decide. We can discuss this again when the Constitution is amended.'



"On my business card I am a corporate president. In my mind I am a game developer. But in my heart I am a gamer." - Satoru Iwata

sc94597 on 02 July 2015
BraveNewWorld said:
The Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage is one of the worst decisions the court has made in its history. Their sole duty is to interpret the Constitution, but when it comes to marriage, there's nothing to interpret. Nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about marriage! In order for the Supreme Court's ruling to be constitutional there needs to be an actual amendment to the Constitution.

Their ruling should have been: 'It's not in the Constitution, therefore it's still up to each state to decide. We can discuss this again when the Constitution is amended.'

They used the 14th Amendment as their justification. 

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with their interpretation, they are indeed interpreting the constitution here. 



alabtrosMyster on 02 July 2015
HBninjaX said:
bad as ever

their job is to uphold the constitution not be pressured by activists to change the law of the land because reasons


Read the constitution, they are a source of law, they're there in great part to protect you from the abuse of the other branches of gvt (unfair laws, etc.) ... this does not mean their decisions are always right, but this is certainly their place to make that kind of decision and politicians have to follow.