Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Well that's not really a democracy, that's how a federal republic acts.
Democracy would mean the majority of the country who approve something would make it so.
The issue as described is that even if 75% of the country approved of something it doesn't. For example, almost every single poll out there shows massive approval for medical marijuana. I mean a vast majority, I'm talking about like 75+. Majority of americans want weed to just be legal (see between 55-65 percent usually) but these things aren't even on the docket. Because a small minority would riot.
We are not a strict democracy, no. But the point still stands that the will of the people will eventually be heard.
Regarding medical marijuana. Currently, it's allowed in 39 states and that's obviously going to expand as time moves on. Change can be slow but it does happen.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Exactly this. To his credit, Obama essentially ceded control of this to the states. That has allowed each state to craft their policies in line with their region's values, instead of dictating that things work the same in Portland as they do in Opelika. Now it isn't a wedge issue. (I say that as someone completely opposed to every form of legalization.)
Compare that to Roe or Obergefell. 46 states had made abortion illegal when the Court legislated Roe from the bench. California had just voted against legalized gay marriage when Obergefell took that choice from voters.
People need to understand that unelected Justices creating law is the closest thing to a dictatorship we've seen in this country.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
The rights acknowledged in the Constitution are defined by the Constitution as granted by the Creator:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident...all men are... endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men."
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I guess I misunderstood your question because I don't know why it needs to jive with the church. Jefferson used Creator instead of God or Jesus for a reason.
And Christians still argue about prohibition amongst ourselves. People in the Baptist church I grew up in will tell you it's sinful that I drink a little, but my pastor is a drinking buddy and we owe much of what know about ale and wine to the Catholic church. I asked a Baptist pastor to reconcile the Baptist position with the story of Jesus turning water into wine once. He said the wine wasn't alcoholic. I think John 2:10 contradicts that with the quote, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.”
To be fair, it started because I read too far into your comments. I took your original post to mean you agreed with the text of the constitution that these rights were given by our Creator.
The reason I’m asking about the theological perspective of the wording of the Constitution is just idle curiosity. If Jefferson felt these were God-given rights, it’s inherently related in a sense to religion, even if they weren’t spelling it out. My curiosity stems from that loose connection. I’ve always been fascinated by how the church interprets new information that Christ could not have possibly spoken about.
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
“Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible ‘solution to the crisis of the day,’ ” Roberts wrote, referring to a court precedent. “But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme.”
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenters, countered: “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,’ ” referring to another precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-change/
Even though I think it would be wise for various reasons to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, I'm with Roberts here. Congress should pass a law giving the EPA the authority to address this issue. Even in our current political climate, I think there is a way forward on this that can achieve a degree of bipartisan support.
Justice Elena Kagan, writing for the dissenters, countered: “Today, the Court strips the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the power Congress gave it to respond to ‘the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,’ ” referring to another precedent.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/30/supreme-court-epa-climate-change/
Even though I think it would be wise for various reasons to accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, I'm with Roberts here. Congress should pass a law giving the EPA the authority to address this issue. Even in our current political climate, I think there is a way forward on this that can achieve a degree of bipartisan support.
Last edited:
Using the media and push polls to convince the American people of the popular sentiment is about to run dry when they try to push legislation through the state and federal houses.
sturg33
I
"We have to let the people vote instead of us dictate what we want to do???"
END OF DEMOCRACY!!!!!!!
Its amazing that power is being given back to the people and the left is crying end of times.
Its so telling....
sturg33
I
Sounds like voter suppression to me
chop2chip
Well-known member
When she runs for president in 2028, it’s going to be something else
striker42
Well-known member
This greenhouse gas case is a little different than it's being portrayed. The headlines make it seem like it was the court striking out against environmentalism and denying global warming, etc. In reality, it's a tug of war over how to address regulatory authority.
There's something called the non-delegation doctrine. This is saying that Congress can't delegate their job of legislation to administrative agencies. However, administrative agencies have to have some authority of their own to make rules. So the question is how to apply the non-delegation doctrine.
There are two major schools of thought. One is the "Major Questions" doctrine, the other is "Chevron Deference".
The Major Questions doctrine essentially says that courts should not defer to executive agency interpretations of statutes on "major questions."
"Chevron Deference" comes from the case Chevron v National Resources Defense Counsel. Chevron Deference essentially says that the courts will defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute so long as it's a reasonable interpretation.
The Major Questions doctrine is much more limiting of regulatory power than Chevron Deference. In recent decades Chevron Deference has been the rule but conservative jurists generally favor the more Major Questions doctrine due to its limitation on regulatory agency power. This case was far more about the fight over the authority of regulatory agencies than it was about global warming.
There's something called the non-delegation doctrine. This is saying that Congress can't delegate their job of legislation to administrative agencies. However, administrative agencies have to have some authority of their own to make rules. So the question is how to apply the non-delegation doctrine.
There are two major schools of thought. One is the "Major Questions" doctrine, the other is "Chevron Deference".
The Major Questions doctrine essentially says that courts should not defer to executive agency interpretations of statutes on "major questions."
"Chevron Deference" comes from the case Chevron v National Resources Defense Counsel. Chevron Deference essentially says that the courts will defer to an agency's interpretation of a statute so long as it's a reasonable interpretation.
The Major Questions doctrine is much more limiting of regulatory power than Chevron Deference. In recent decades Chevron Deference has been the rule but conservative jurists generally favor the more Major Questions doctrine due to its limitation on regulatory agency power. This case was far more about the fight over the authority of regulatory agencies than it was about global warming.