Anyone who thinks the supreme Court is supposed to follow the will of the people has no understanding of the purpose of the supreme Court.

If we just wanted our country to follow the will of the majority at all times, supreme Court justices would be elected, not appointed, and they would have to run for reelection.

victor809 wrote:

Jokes aside... we do not want the judiciary branch running things. Period.

Seems to me they almost do already... balance in the supreme court is best.

MACS wrote:

At that level the letter should always be more important except in an incredibly rare instance.

ZRX1200 wrote:

Did the SC provide justice in the Dred Scott case? How about Plessy vs. Ferguson? How about FDR's baby, the Korematsu case?

The law was bastardized in those cases by these "supreme intellects."
Where was your justice?
So many times the S.C. is bigoted- how can that be? The peon civilians are the racists.

I don't care what the gay community does, or the trans, or the bi-s.
But, when that community pushes their agenda and forces everyone to accept it as the new normal, or be called homophobes or that we are Bible clingers, then I have an issue. Trying to pass off transgender/transexuals/ transwhatevers as normal and acceptable and "you better embrace it or else" is reCOCKulous.

And as a side note, are Bi-sexual people put upon in society-when did that happen?

Back to original intent of the judicial system. Justice is supposed to be blind to the parties and follow the law and pass judgements based on the law. We now have the judiciary legislating from the bench.

How is THAT tolerable?

Following the law is what judges are supposed to do. It may not give out the justice that one wants, but when you have judges individually deciding what they think is justice, that is a recipe for lawlessness.

teddyballgame wrote:

The court should be made up of a non-biased third party... to be fair and stuff... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

The court should be made up of a non-biased third party... to be fair and stuff... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

I disagree - It is the job of the Justices to interpret the law, with the goal of providing justice as the law in intended to provide. So, the crux of the biscuit is preserving the intent of the law, not necessarily the written letter.

Let’s remember that justice and the law are different things….

Brewha wrote:

I think Scalia did his country a great service - by kicking off. ........
......

This is great news!

Brewha wrote:

+1

I think Mitch is a bad joke; and he is one of my senators. We not only need balance in the Court but also the checks and balances in the rest of the government. We for too long have had a "House divided against its self" in our government because our politicians have been more concerned with keeping or getting more personal power then effective governance. I think Scalia would not be in favor of waiting till after the election. Because, for all of his faults, I think he did believe in the letter of the constitution and the rule of law. 🌫

Buckwheat wrote:

I think Scalia would not be in favor of waiting till after the election. Because, for all of his faults, I think he did believe in the letter of the constitution and the rule of law. 🌫

frankj1 wrote: