[DGUtley]

Not legally, no.

[buckeyedan]

Well I am no that concerned with McCain but I am also not that concerned with the oppinions of the court...

this is a great example of WHY... exactly... it was a huge mistake to allow the SC to give itself judicial review!

despite all the laws and intent of ELECTED officials to try to reign in campaign finance... it came down to one NON-ELECTED guys oppinion (since 4 always vote one way and 4 the other)...

the power of the elected congress and president was overruled by the whim of unelected judges... or to quote Lincoln: "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

look at Obama care?
we elected these folks and they voted for this
but we are all waiting for people we DID NOT ELECT to make a decision? that's just crazy!

if we are against it... vote others in who will remove the law!

My oppinion is that neither corporations nor unions should be treated as "a person" and protected this way. That's illogical.

But I also scoff at this concept that people are too stupid and will simply fall for whoever spends more money.

[BGFalcons82]

Originally Posted by buckeyedan

Well I am no that concerned with McCain but I am also not that concerned with the oppinions of the court...

this is a great example of WHY... exactly... it was a huge mistake to allow the SC to give itself judicial review!

despite all the laws and intent of ELECTED officials to try to reign in campaign finance... it came down to one NON-ELECTED guys oppinion (since 4 always vote one way and 4 the other)...

the power of the elected congress and president was overruled by the whim of unelected judges... or to quote Lincoln: "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

look at Obama care?
we elected these folks and they voted for this
but we are all waiting for people we DID NOT ELECT to make a decision? that's just crazy!

if we are against it... vote others in who will remove the law!

My oppinion is that neither corporations nor unions should be treated as "a person" and protected this way. That's illogical.

But I also scoff at this concept that people are too stupid and will simply fall for whoever spends more money.

The rich white racist slave owners set up our country based on 3 EQUAL branches of government. I realize it's easy to believe that presidents, especially the current occupier, walk about and act like they are king of all they survey, but they are not.

The reason the SCOTUS members aren't elected and serve lifetime appointments is so that they are above being swayed by lobbyists, coercive-types, and providing rulings based on how they would potentially be served by those that would get them re-elected. The fact that they have 1/3 of the power helps keep the country from becoming a banana republic that changes their entire government with every election. Is that what you want? A constantly evolving living-document type government is better than what we have?

These same founders also gave future generations the ability to change the system via the amendment process. It's not easy, but nothing worth having is easy.

[NapRover]

Originally Posted by buckeyedan

Well I am no that concerned with McCain but I am also not that concerned with the oppinions of the court...

this is a great example of WHY... exactly... it was a huge mistake to allow the SC to give itself judicial review!

despite all the laws and intent of ELECTED officials to try to reign in campaign finance... it came down to one NON-ELECTED guys oppinion (since 4 always vote one way and 4 the other)...

the power of the elected congress and president was overruled by the whim of unelected judges... or to quote Lincoln: "the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."

look at Obama care?
we elected these folks and they voted for this
but we are all waiting for people we DID NOT ELECT to make a decision? that's just crazy!

if we are against it... vote others in who will remove the law!

My oppinion is that neither corporations nor unions should be treated as "a person" and protected this way. That's illogical.

But I also scoff at this concept that people are too stupid and will simply fall for whoever spends more money.

Maybe people aren't stupid, but they are ill-advised, lazy and envious of those who work harder and have more possessions. These folks-and I believe there are tens of millions-will vote for whoever gives/promises them more of the stuff they're convinced they're entitled to.

[DGUtley]

Well said Nap -- hence, the current incarnation of Santa Claus -- Santa Barack. Something for just about everyone right up to the election.

[dorciepatrick]

Originally Posted by BGFalcons82

The rich white racist slave owners set up our country based on 3 EQUAL branches of government. I realize it's easy to believe that presidents, especially the current occupier, walk about and act like they are king of all they survey, but they are not.

The reason the SCOTUS members aren't elected and serve lifetime appointments is so that they are above being swayed by lobbyists, coercive-types, and providing rulings based on how they would potentially be served by those that would get them re-elected. The fact that they have 1/3 of the power helps keep the country from becoming a banana republic that changes their entire government with every election. Is that what you want? A constantly evolving living-document type government is better than what we have?

These same founders also gave future generations the ability to change the system via the amendment process. It's not easy, but nothing worth having is easy.

Great post, BG......We may not agree on the substance of many of the Supreme Court's rulings, but the Constitution clearly gives the SC the right of judicial review. Otherwise, they couldn't be an equal branch of our governmental system.
We all take issue from time to time with the Court's rulings, but history has shown that -- should the Court err -- it has also corrected itself over time and eventually got it right.
Anyway, thanks for your post.

[buckeyedan]

Originally Posted by BGFalcons82

The rich white racist slave owners set up our country based on 3 EQUAL branches of government. I realize it's easy to believe that presidents, especially the current occupier, walk about and act like they are king of all they survey, but they are not.

The reason the SCOTUS members aren't elected and serve lifetime appointments is so that they are above being swayed by lobbyists, coercive-types, and providing rulings based on how they would potentially be served by those that would get them re-elected. The fact that they have 1/3 of the power helps keep the country from becoming a banana republic that changes their entire government with every election. Is that what you want? A constantly evolving living-document type government is better than what we have?

These same founders also gave future generations the ability to change the system via the amendment process. It's not easy, but nothing worth having is easy.

I guess that is fine Rhetoric...
but what does it have to do with what I am saying?

I am saying the Constituion does not give the SC the right to rule on the constitutionality of laws...

so all this "equal branches" stuff is good but has nothing to do with the consitution or judicial review which was NOT part of the constitution (couldn't be... Virginia - the largest state at the time had OUTLAWED judicial review and never would have agreed to join)

many of the founders felt - and correctly so - judicial review gives the court power OVER the other branches and destroys the concept of seperate but EQUAL as we end up with what we see today: law passed but we all have to wait on the court to tell us what it actually means of if we poor stupid souls are allowed to have it or not

you are right that the constituion has ways of making changes - amendments

if judicial review is desired then we should change amend the document to allow it

I agree with Lincoln and Jefferson that it is a bad idea that will eventually lead to tyrany

Originally Posted by NapRover

Maybe people aren't stupid, but they are ill-advised, lazy and envious of those who work harder and have more possessions. These folks-and I believe there are tens of millions-will vote for whoever gives/promises them more of the stuff they're convinced they're entitled to.

well that's their right isn't it?

if we are going to have a democracy that everyone can vote - we are going to have to allow everyone to vote rather we agree with them or their decision making or not...

Originally Posted by dorciepatrick

Great post, BG......We may not agree on the substance of many of the Supreme Court's rulings, but the Constitution clearly gives the SC the right of judicial review. Otherwise, they couldn't be an equal branch of our governmental system.
We all take issue from time to time with the Court's rulings, but history has shown that -- should the Court err -- it has also corrected itself over time and eventually got it right.
Anyway, thanks for your post.

once again
the constitution does not in any way give the supreme court the right of judicial review!

[DGUtley]

Judicial review is well-settled law. It's a non-issue.