Is the SCOTUS perfect and ALWAYS right?

[beevul]

Are the justices that make up the scotus infallible?

Is there something about thier chamber that makes them incapable of making errors, or wrong interpretations of the constitution/bill of rights?

Are the SC justices above injecting their personal beliefs/agenda where they do not belong?

[gmoney]

1. That's why they all wear bishop's hats

and the Chief Justice wears the Papal Mitre.

[wrang_wrang]

2. See Dred Scott case for info on the infallibility of SCOTUS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4h2933.html

Historical Document
Dred Scott case: the Supreme Court decision
1857
In March of 1857, the United States Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, declared that all blacks -- slaves as well as free -- were not and could never become citizens of the United States. The court also declared the 1820 Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, thus permiting slavery in all of the country's territories.

The case before the court was that of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Dred Scott, a slave who had lived in the free state of Illinois and the free territory of Wisconsin before moving back to the slave state of Missouri, had appealed to the Supreme Court in hopes of being granted his freedom.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Absolutely

Dred Scott is the worst example of judicial prejudice, though Plessy vs Ferguson ("seperate but equal") comes a close second.

[wrang_wrang]

5. Florida 2000 election is only starting to be cited

as one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS history.

[WMliberal]

6. or how about the brandeis quote

regarding sterilization of mentally handicapped persons: one generation of morons is enough.

[napi21]

4. Nawww, sometimes they call the CJ pope, but only then is he

infallible.

Then they resort to trying to be humans, and the whole thing falls appart.

[jjmalonejr]

7. They are not infalible...

...but they are the last word, Constitutionally speaking. That's why the scene from F911 where the Democrats capitulated on the question of the 2000 Election was so tragic. What was to be done, short of an extra-Consitutional revolution? The SCOTUS had spoken, and the Constitution provides no redress that I know of.

This is why four more years of Bush, appointing more right-wingers to SCOTUS would be a disaster.

[unblock]

8. the constitution provides for amendment; impeachement; AND

it also provides for the rule of law.

this is where the FLORIDA supreme court failed us. the u.s. supreme court's decision was extralegal because the constitution provided for the states to determine electors and for the houses of congress to resolve disputes.

by interjecting themselves in the process, they rendered nonsensical the clause providing disputes to be resolved by the house and senate. if the supreme court intervenes in electoral disputes, how can there be any disputes left for the house and senate to resolve? the founders clearly did not give the supreme court the right to intervene.

what is to be done with an illegal decision? it is simply to be ignored. the florida supreme court should have recognized this and had the sack to stand up to them and say, sorry, but the florida supreme court decides all matters regarding florida elections. only the house and senate can resolve disputes.

sadly, they didn't. the florida supreme court ruled 9-0 to back down. THAT was the LEGAL caving that gave the presidency to shrub.

[jjmalonejr]

9. All good points

Of course, amendment of the Constitution can override Supreme Court decisions, although that is a lengthy and difficult process.

Is there a process for impeachment of a Supreme Court justice? I didn't know that.

The Supreme Court can intervene in questions about the Constitutionality of state laws. The Bushes argued that the selective recounts being proposed by the FL supreme court violated Equal Protection (give me a break!), but it seems to me that the Supreme Court should be allowed to hear such arguments and make a decision. They (in my judgement) reached the wrong decision.

Perhaps you are correct that there may have been other avenues for opposing the decision, but what a mess! I guess Constitutional crises are always a mess.

[unblock]

14. there WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS!

that was just some b.s. republican talking point to excuse the supremes stepping in.

the supreme court can indeed generally rule on constitutionality of state laws. however, when the u.s. constitution specifically grants rights regarding selecting electors to the states and dispute resolution to congress, the supremes clearly were not meant to have a role in elections.

the founders were adamant that unelected judges should not have a role in electing officials. they wanted very much for the house to pay any political price for going against the will of the people.

i'm not arguing that the bush v. gore decision was bad (though it was) i'm arguing that they never had the jurisdiction to intervene in the first place. selection of florida's electors is florida's business, and disputes are to be handled by the house (for president) and the senate (for vice-president).

[Lefty48197]

10. No, so we should appoint some NRA members to the "supreme" court

since they all seem to think that they are Constitutional scholars.

[goju]

12. I think you have that backwards

The constitutional controllers are the ones who seem to think the scotus is infallible, until a decision is rendered that they find distasteful. Then it is characterized as an "abberation" or some similar backstep. Consistency is not one of their strong points.

But feel free to point out wherein the constitution there is a call for restricting gun ownership, being the "constitutional scholar" critic that you are.

[library_max]

15. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." R.W. Emerson.

When one decision is made in the heat of partisan fervor, with an actual clause in it that prevents it from being used as a precedent in other related cases, it is not unreasonable to call that isolated decision an aberration. When an entire body of case law, from a variety of Supreme Courts and other high US courts, is united in a consistent interpretation, it is fairly ridiculous to pretend that every case in that body of law was an aberration. And this is not an inconsistency but simply a recognition that different things are different, not the same.

[goju]

16. And if they steal it again

with the help of the scotus, will you also call that an aberration? Will you, at any time, suspect the scotus of being a political entity?

Lets not forget that NO scotus decision has EVER ruled on the 2nd itself. To suggest that they are consistent in their interpretation is to say that they consistently avoid ruling on the 2nd itself.

[library_max]

17. What are you talking about? The Supreme Court has ruled on the

Second Amendment "itself." In Miller, for example, the court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to Miller's case because the weapon in question was not appropriate for use in the militia.

As for stealing it again with the help of SCOTUS, you need to look at the record since Bush v. Gore. Justice O'Connor, especially, has been working overtime to atone. The swing justices (at least) are not looking for an opportunity to make the same mistake again.

[goju]

19. Wrong

The scotus "interpreted" RKBA within the context of the militia only for the purpose of establishing whether the weapon in question had some reasonable relationship to the preservation of the militia. It did NOT take up the actual question of individual RKBA. It was about a weapon, not the 2nd itself.

[library_max]

20. The Second Amendment is the amendment that concerns weapons.

If the Second Amendment can only be interpreted and applied in the context of the preservation and effectiveness of the militia, then individual RKBA goes right out the window. An individual is not a militia, not by the definitions and examples given in Miller and not by any other definitions or standards.

[goju]

22. Ok, just for the sake of argument

How would the individual RKBA go right out the window, militia or not? Nothing from Miller would support such an assertion so, what basis do you have for such a statement?

[library_max]

23. Miller says that the Second Amendment

can be applied and interpreted only in the context of continuing and making effective the militia. Now a militia is not a single person. That'd be a ludicrous definition, and certainly not consistent with the definition and examples in Miller. So, as the right pertains only to the militia and as the militia is not an individual, there is clearly no individual right.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. All you need to remember is that a SC decision is not synonymous with

justice all the time. It's just an answer to a question that can't be appealed to a higher authority. The decision-making process is susceptible to human fallibility such as bias, pride, and faulty logic.

No one and no government body is infallible.

[library_max]

13. No, but their interpretations establish what the law means.

Whether or not you or I agree with this or that decision, those decisions still have the force of law unless and until they are overturned by a later SCOTUS decision.

And of course it's a lot harder to dismiss an entire body of case law - say, the US case law on the Second Amendment covering the last sixty-five years - as all made up of errors and personal bias. It invites the speculation that the errors and bias might be on the other side of the equation.

[mosin]

18. You should really try reading...

all that case law you seem so fond of characterizing.

To quote Inigo Montoya: "I do not think it means what you think it means."

[library_max]

21. As a matter of fact, I have.

Have you?