Does the Supreme Court have to follow the laws of the land?

kentuck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 02:55 PM
Original message

Does the Supreme Court have to follow the laws of the land?

The precedence is the law of the land for the Supreme Court. They need a very good justification in order to over-ride the precedence of the last 100 years. But that is what they did. And they were not justified in doing so. They may be judges on the highest court in the land but they did not follow precedence or the spirit of the law about campaign financing. They need to be exposed for the partisan hacks that they are. They are not beyond reproach.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Learning Nomad

(94 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 02:59 PM
Response to Original message

1. They did follow the spirit of the Constitution, however, even if they didn't follow the law about

campaign financing. I'll take the Constitution and free speech any day.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kentuck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 03:02 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. How did they follow the spirit of the Constitution...

Can you explain that?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

sharesunited

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. The greatest liberty which society will tolerate regardless of who or what gets crushed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LiberalFighter

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 03:38 PM
Response to Reply #1

6. The spirit of the Constitution did not include businesses or corporations.

It refers to individual rights, state rights, federal rights. But no where does it refer to business or corporation rights.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DeadEyeDyck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 03:25 PM
Response to Original message

4. I think, by definition, the Supreme Court is

the law of the land.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

kentuck

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #4

5. The Supreme Court defines the law of the land.

But their definitions have to be justified. They cannot rule tomorrow that it is legal to murder someone.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

harkadog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sat Jan-23-10 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #5

7. If Congress passed a law saying it was legal to murder

The Supreme Court could rule tomorrow that law was Constitutional if there was five votes for that position.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Thu May 02nd 2024, 11:01 PM
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.