akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
akuma587 said:
Kasz216 said:
The Ghost of RubangB said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Funny how now things like States Rights, and Constitutions matter to you. When it's to protect something you don't like, those concepts are just outdated.
|
This is a civil rights issue. I don't want the state to have the right to tyrannize a minority. Funny how civil rights and constitutions don't matter to you. When it's the gays, those concepts are just outdated.
|
Regardless, it seems more important that the laws stay consistant. Otherwise it can lead to further breaches of civil rights later.
Like how everyone is afraind more conservative judges on the SC might overturn Roe V Wade.
Why the heck should the Supreme Court be able to overturn a previous decision?
|
I'm definitely against overturning Roe v. Wade, but 5-4 decisions are prime targets for being overrturned, especially if the times have significantly changed.
I'm glad the Supreme Court overturns older decisions its made, otherwise our laws would be a complete mess. For instance, if the Supreme Court had never overturned Swift v. Tyson, state law would be something that federal courts could flat out ignore. This is no longer the case after the Erie decision where federal courts HAVE to apply that states law when the state's law is applicable to the case.
|
Couldn't that have been changed via say... actual legislation?
I think letting the courts change the deicsions let politicans off the hook for making important yet unpopular decisions.
Bad politicans are smart people who do dumb things for bribes and reelections.
Why worry about gay rights legislation when we can wait for the courts to do it? I mean they don't need reelection!
Good polticians seem to be the people who do dumb things simply for reelection now a days.
|
The Supreme Court was already interpreting a piece of legislation. And you underestimate how slow Congress can be to respond to a problem, and how willing the Supreme Court can be to strike down Congress's obtuse attempts to get around the Supreme Court's decisions.
Sometimes judges have to make those unpopular decisions. That is one of the reasons why they in most cases aren't elected officials. They are there to be the arbiters of the law and the Constitution, even if that means going against popular opinion. I'm all for politicians who have there act together and aren't afraid to stand up for the issues they believe in, but the American public is about as fickle as it can be. I'm not excusing politicians, but we are as much to blame as anyone for their shortcomings. I mean we elect them every year after all.
|
What changed in the piece of legislation to change the interpretation?
Congress can be slow to a problem... maybe because they know the Supreme court can clean it up for them?
I mean hell, that bailout got passed pretty quickly considering pretty much everyone in the government was against it.
