« What Can’t Go On Forever Can’t Go On Any Longer | Main | As Stockton Goes, So Goes… »

Monday, June 25, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c046f53ef016767d54620970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Whatever Is Wrong With The Supreme Court Can’t Be Fixed:

Comments

online Education

Thinking About Education & Not Getting the Solution?
 

Just fill out the Form & you'll get a call from our Education Advisor within 6Hrs. 
http://www.schoolanduniversity.com 
http://www.trafficgeyser.net/lead/help-me-find-a-college

larry kurtz

Why not call for a Constitutional Convention, Ken?

BambiB

The Supremes have been out of control for 80 years.

Their decisions in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), US v. Miller (1939) and US v Raich (2005) show contorted, convoluted, irrational "reasoning".

Under Wickard, EVERYTHING is "interstate commerce" and so subject to the rule of Congress. Never mind that if the Founders had intended that result, they would have simply said, "All power rests with Congress". In Wickard, the Supremes decided that raising wheat on one's own farm for one's own use was "Interstate Commerce" because it had the potential to "affect" interstate commerce.

In Raich, the Supremes decided that commerce doesn't even have to be LEGAL commerce for Congress to "regulate" it. Thus Congress can regulate the illegal commerce in marijuana. Note that in Wickard, the purpose of regulating wheat supply was to ensure higher prices and greater profits for farmers. Note that in Raich, the purpose was to ensure higher prices for marijuana and greater profits for Mexican drug cartels. (WHAT!??) Yes, the main beneficiaries of US v. Raich are the same Mexican drug cartels that have been receiving high-power weaponry courtesy of Eric Holder and the BATFE.

In Miller, the Supremes left the question of whether gun control was constitutional hanging for so long, that the delay left its own unconstitutional result. By the time the Miller case reached the Supreme Court, Miller was dead. Yet the court reversed and remanded the case for FURTHER PROCEEDINGS! Keep in mind that the lower courts all ruled the National Firearms Act UNCONSTIUTIONAL! But until the Heller case, the Court was apparently waiting for Miller to get back to them.

So it was in Heller (2008) that the Supremes carved out an exception to the general rule that gun control is unconstitutional. Guns could be banned if they were "unusual and dangerous" Well, "dangerous" should be a given. A gun that isn't "dangerous" isn't of much use. But what about "unusual"? It turns out that firearms like the AK-47, the M-16 and short-barreled shotguns are "unusual". Why? Because for 80 years the Supremes declined to rule on a Second Amendment case! In short, the Supreme Court CREATED the fiction of "unusual" arms by sitting on its collective ass for 80 years!

The latest bonehead "decision" by the Supremes? Arizona is largely prohibited from addressing its problem with criminal aliens.

Quite often lay people think that decisions by the Supreme Court don't make sense, but have doubts about their own conclusions because of a lack of knowledge about the law. They figure there must be some valid reason why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did. For the record, quite often the Supreme Court's reason for ruling in a particular manner is collective stupidity or political motivation. Trust your instincts. If a ruling by the Supreme Court looks like insanity - it probably is.

Stan Gibilisco

Barack Obama, our Constitutional-Law-Professor-in-Chief, opposed the individual health-insurance mandate before he favored it.

Where does that leave us?

The Supremes will soon say.

robeiae

FYI, the "poll" cited by Fallows (and Ezra Klein) was no such thing. A questionnaire was sent out to 131 constitutional scholars. 21 responded to it. So, at best it's a poll of 131 experts, 110 of whom had no opinion on the matter, one way or they other, or at least would not offer it.

More: http://thepondsofhappenstance.blogspot.com/2012/06/manufacturing-concensus.html

Ken Blanchard

Robeiae: I agree that the poll was nonsense, but thanks for providing the details. You reinforce my point that Fallow's flatulence was just that.

Poker Geld

Ausführlich das meine selbst im gleichen Sinne ungeachtet
man möglicherweise schließlich auf keinen Fall was auch immer kostenfrei bieten oder obgleich tagchen diesseits hab meine Wenigkeit was entdeckt Poker Geld Gratis selbst hab die von einem Kamerad.
Aufgeladen Gratis Kohle ebenso bombastisch Webseite hast du dabei Super

Poker Geld

The comments to this entry are closed.