More endangered SCOTUS ruling - Democratic Underground

alonso_quijano

(240 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:01 PM
Original message

Poll question: More endangered SCOTUS ruling

Given B*sh's absolutely insane rantings about "activist judges" (meaning, "judges who are actually doing their jobs"), which Supreme Court decision do you think is more endangered?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

TankLV

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:02 PM
Response to Original message

1. I know Roe - what was Madison about?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ithacan

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #1

4. it established the very principle of judicial review,

that is, that the courts have the right and duty to review legislation to make sure that it is not in conflict with the Constitution.

I think...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

alonso_quijano

(240 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #1

5. Judicial review

(or, at least, that's the most important part of the ruling)

It established that the Supreme Court can declare acts of Congress--and the executive--to be unconstitutional.

Actually, this poll was just me venting my anger. Every time B*sh goes on about "activist judges," he's asserting that the judiciary does not have the authority to rule on Constitutionality.

As much as B*sh scares me with his anti-choice rhetoric, this scares me even more. It's another power grab by the Imperial Executive--possibly the biggest one yet--and no one even seems to notice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

outinforce

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #5

8. Dred Scott Case

I think the Dred Scott case was a case where Judicial Review was applied.

Also the case of Plessy v. Ferguson.

And how did we all like the case where the Scotus decided that the Boy Scouts could exclude gays from positions of leadership?

It strikes me that anytime there is a decision which a large number of people dislike that those same people who dislike the decision -- whether it is a "conservative" or a "liberal" decision -- will claim that the Supreme Court over-stepped its bounds.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

malatesta1137

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:05 PM
Response to Original message

2. The Unelected Chimp doesn't like

activist judges, except the one who stop vote counts and select an American president themselves.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Blayde Starrfyre

(428 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:08 PM
Response to Original message

3. Uh . . .

Since Marbury v. Madison has been the foundation for the process of judicial review for over 200 years, I don't see that one as troubled. For a court to overturn it, they would have to use the process it established.

Also, I'd like to say I am troubled by Roe v. Wade. If a court can just start inserting stuff into the Constitution, it could go either way, good or bad . . .

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dookus

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:11 PM
Response to Original message

6. I think neither

but if it had to be one, it would be Roe v Wade.

Marbury v Madison is the very basis of our current judicial system. It's not going anywhere.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Yupster

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #6

11. Roe versus Wade will eventually be struck down

Whether by liberal or conservative judges, it was a nonsensical decision, that many on both sides agree will eventually have to be replaced by something that makes a bit more sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

fryguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 03:12 PM
Response to Original message

7. taking on Marbury would be like Congress voting in favor of term limits...

it would fundamentally undercut their very authority....besides, without the principle of judicial review, all those "strict constructionist" judges couldn't go about overturning all those long standing opinions written by "activist judges"

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Gothmog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 05:16 PM
Response to Original message

9. Marbury is too well estabihsed to over rule now

Marbury v. Madison is simply too much part of the legal landscape to be overturned or reversed now. I do fear for Roe because it would not be hard to find five votes at some point to overturn it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapislzi

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Mon May-17-04 06:36 PM
Response to Original message

10. This is an interesting poll...I'm giving it a kick

in light of the Constitutional Restoration Act and the furious efforts of the Christian Reconstructionists, I believe Marbury vs Madison is in serious jeopardy. Without Marbury vs Madison, there IS no Roe v Wade.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 09th 2024, 04:41 AM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.