when they decided the Citizens United case. Or Bush v. Gore. Or Dred Scott, for that matter.

No.

The people didn't want it? Which is the constant the people or the court?

on the side of equality when a case comes down the line about whether or not it is legal to discriminate employment because someone is Gay?

Or to serve them services?

Really?

Did we, the people, force them to decide Citizens United? Did it matter or not when they Decided Brown v. Board of Education? I see your point, but our history offers only weak support for your argument, and plenty of evidence against it. I realize we should not choose a presidential candidate based on fears about who will be appointed, but think of a court with five Scalias and four Thomases.

and it will, it matters VERY much who gets to appoint those who sit on it.

power.

communities.

Did you see their reasoning? We don't need anyone with that type of outlook on the court giving these bozo's a majority!

3 good reasons right there, as to why it actually REALLY does matter!

Thom Hartmann's take on the USSC and the beginning of their legislating from the bench habit...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101737747

A critical part of our our system that protects us against the tyranny of the majority or the tyranny of a king.

State laws prove that it had not been accepted.

Thanks to five justices, it is now protected.

It most definitely does. Maybe you should brush up on Americn History.

It's done some shitty things, too. But most importantly, it does the job it is set up to do. The House turns over every 2 years, the presidency every 4, the Senate (potentially) every 6 years. There is a reason that some things turn over faster than others and not at the same time. The 3rd branch, the SCOTUS, is there to provide an even more calming effect than the 6 year senate rollover. It's not supposed to fluctuate with the time as quickly as the House. If every part of government was as volatile as the House, this country would suck. The 3 branches are genius. You should include Madison in your prayers every night for coming up with this.

You should be embarrassed and ashamed.

The court isn't elected. It doesn't respond to the will of the people. Justices interpret law based on their judicial philosophy. The only influence we as people have is through the President who appoints them and Senate that confirms.

Now, it is true that they do not bestow civil rights, as gifts from up on high. Their responses are shaped by what is happening in society. But justices can exercise their votes to put the breaks on or reverse social change. One more GOP justice and we would not having marriage equality or ACA. Abortion would be struck down. The balance is tenuous, at best.

It may not matter if one is a straight, white male, but it damn well matters to the rest of us. We don't have the luxury of not worrying about it because our basic rights are under attack each and every day. That some on the left are willing to either align themselves with the GOP to strip the majority of basic rights or turn their back on the rest of us is incredibly offensive.

It surprises me that you would make such a display of privilege.

My language made sense to me, and it probably would have come off differently if I was in a one on one conversation, as it would be a lot easier to clarify what I meant. This needs more explanation, in a longer essay. I fully realize how much power the Supreme Court holds in our lives, and especially so for women and minorities, and I don't mean to to diminish the reality of their decisions on our society.

Instead, I was trying for something more along the lines of "The Supreme Court has power, but it doesn't matter any more so than the individual politicians in office matter (looking at the presidency here)--real power is the ability of the people to influence their decisions through their collective will." I have historical evidence, parallels, and explanations for that, as well as more things that go along with it.

Instead, it was poorly written, phrased, and timed on my part. But I intended something entirely different, believe me.

The SCOTUS is very relevant as shown by today and yesterday's decision. The SCOTUS composition will affect rulings on such areas as Citizens United, the Voting Rights Act, the right to privacy and the right to abortion (Roe v. Wade). These decisions have been close decisions and if the GOP won the White House in 2016, then the direction of the SCOTUS would change heavily. The next POTUS will get to pick three or four SCOTUS justices and these justices will control the direction of the court for a generation.

I live in Texas where I am dealing with the gutting of the Voting Rights Act by the SCOTUS two years ago. We have voter id law and voter suppression laws that would never have been permitted if the SCOTUS had not gutted the Voting Rights Act. It is critical that we control the direction of the SCOTUS

This is
A) A slap in the face to LGBT
B) A deflection for those who keeps stressing the importance of not standing on your laurels and costing us the POTUS in 2016 because you don't like the nominee. I am so sick of this shit on a Democratic site. YOU may think SCOTUS is meaningless, but they aren't. They leave marks on this nation for generations whether YOU like it or not.

Suck it up, buttercup. Celebrate with us and RECOGNIZE how infuckingcredibly important it is that we NOT let a Republican nominate judges.

By the way - that is my comment on the vote to hide this BS OP.

Thanks for shitting on my parade.

UGH.

Tell the people that today have a shred of equality for the first time that the supreme court doesn't matter.
Tell people that couldn't marry the person they loved because they were a different race that the court doesn't matter.
Tell people that were put away for life on a three strikes law that the Supreme Court doesn't matter.
Tell Al Gore the court doesn't matter.

Your post is ignorant.

Even after the edit.

majority can want something that is unconstitutional and violates the rights of others. There might be a majority that thinks Christianity should be the state religion, but even if they are a majority they cannot have that, because the Constitution does not allow it.

America had not accepted gay marriage in all states. Who was fighting that case? Some red state that wanted to prohibit it, and never have it. Now they are forced to.

Its decisions are NOT always for the established elite. Good grief. How about the Miranda decision, just for starters?

and condemn it when it does not. This has been going on for over 200 years. People think liberals on the court always vote liberal. They don't. People think conservatives on the court always vote conservative. They don't. People think liberals always stay liberal and conservatives always stay conservative. They don't. People think if Clinton or Sanders wins and appoints a couple of Justices there will be Nirvana. It won't happen. They will still be mad at the court depending on the decision.

Thanks.

>wipes tears from eyes<

And a slap in the face to all those affected by today's decision.