Published: Wednesday, June 12 2013 1:53 p.m. MDT
Mr. Davis teaches political science at BYU? Yet he thinks that it was a Supreme
Court decision from 1857 that made slavery "constitutional"? Such
constitutional illiteracy should be unacceptable in a Jr. High School Civics
The Supreme Court was not designed to respond to democratic forces in the same
way that the other brances of government do. In fact, courts in general are
essentially "anti-democratic" institutions. They are supposed to adhere
to the law regardless of what the general population thinks. Whether that
happens in practice is another issue, of course.
I lost any confidence in the SCOTUS when they ruled that Obamacare was
constitutional as a TAX when Obama promised over and over again it wasn't a
tax! Now the federal government can force us to buy and do anything, all they
need to do is call it a tax. "Tax" now can mean anything and now really
I agree with Mountainman the Obamacare case was the straw for me. I have zero
confidence in the U.S. government period.
So Mtm you were ok with Roe v Wade?
New flash for you pragmatist! Our tax dollars are paying for abortions. So the
government is forcing taxpayers to buy abortions, thanks to Roe v Wade. Where
exactly is that written in the constitution?
It has been illegal to use federal tax funds to pay for abortions since the
The inscription on the building in the photo says "Equal Justice Under
Law". Protecting those of the same gender who want to get married seems to
fit the description nicely.
I think the "lifetime" appointment is really a bad idea for all judges.
And, if there is belief that judges are supposed to be non partisan
politically, then why do Presidents appoint conservative or liberal judges?
That the judiciary is blind and non political is the biggest joke of all. The
only way a judge could be non partisan is if he were living in sequestration
like jurors for their whole lives. John Roberts I believe has delt the worst
political blow to the country by allowing Obamacare. That decision will rock
the foundations of America for decades. But, we can all be happy for Justice
Roberts, as I'm sure that he and his family are getting all the D.C area
"A" list invitations that they would have lost if he had ruled using the
Only the radical tea party conservatives. Everyone else respects the law.
@ Roland.The effort to defund Planned Parenthood was voted down in the Senate by
a 58-42 vote. Tax payers therefore are paying for abortions. Planned Parenthood,
the nation's largest abortion provider received $350 million in taxpayer
funds last year alone.
The court only has the power to interpret the law as it is written, according to
the constitution. It is not the Supreme Court's job, for example, to
decide on the merits of Obamacare. Public opinion should absolutely NOT be
taken into account by the court. The design was made such that public opinion
should drive what laws are being created and the court only rules on its
constitutionality. If an opinion is so problematic, the people do have the
power to overturn the court (in theory) by amending the constitution. Also, I guarantee if there were public opinion polls throughout history, the
court's approval rating would have been as low as it is any time they took
on truly controversial topics. Civil rights, abortion, health care, gay
marriage, and affirmative action are sure to upset a lot of folks. Some of
those negative votes might be restricted to one issue, while they approve of the
Re: one voteAre you serious? Where do the Tea Party not respect the
law? They may want to change it yes, but so does every other political group.
And to say what you said in light of all that we are finding out about this
current administration, respecting the law seems pretty low on Obama and Holders
list right now.
OHBU To further one of your points, the kind of Judge I want on any
court is the one that will for example, profess a hatred for guns and the 2nd
Amendment, BUT, will nevertheless rule in favor of the right to keep and bear
arms because that is what the constitution says. The dangerous judges are the
ones who will find some convoluted way to rule in favor of their own wants. Roe
v Wade was an example of such. In addition to my first post, I
actually think that if the Supreme Court were located in say Omaha Nebraska,
many judges would rule differently because they would be out from under the
pressure of D.C. politics
@mg scott --"The only way a judge could be non partisan is if he
were living in sequestration like jurors for their whole lives. John Roberts I
believe has delt the worst political blow to the country by allowing
Obamacare."You do remember that it was BUSH who appointed
Roberts -- right?
Re: plainbrownwrapperI absolutely remember that he was a Bush
appointee. And once again, it would seem that Roberts may go the way of a
Seuter who was another Bush appointee, namely HW Bush. I long for the day when
a Supreme Court judge appointed by a Democrat President, like Obama, becomes a
conservative. It seems that when Democrats appoint liberals, they stay liberal.
When Republicans appoint judges, it becomes a tossup as to where they end up
politically. As I said above, what I want is non-partisan constitutional first
Judges. But as long as the judiciary is as much political as any other part of
government, then I want conservative judges appointed as much as liberals want
liberal ones. Last post.
I think the waning confidence is directly related to increasing political
extremism in the country. The political center is being hollowed out. So,
decisions that do not cater to one extreme or the other get less respect from
both sides. Decisions that do go one way or the other are rejected out of hand
by the other side and there are fewer in the middle to at least be partially
persuaded.In the end, our nation is an agreement to get along and
work together for certain common goals. We formalized that agreement first via
the Articles of Confederation and then via the Constitution. But in spite of
ANY document, governance requires civility and some ability to moderate ones
views for the betterment and advancement of the whole. We are losing that
quality and that does not bode well for our nation.We have sown
seeds of nastiness and divisiveness. The law of the harvest tells us what we
will reap. Karma if you will.Read Washington's Farewell
Address for an indictment of parties and partisanship like no other. He was as
a prophet for our nation.
@mg scott --" It seems that when Democrats appoint liberals,
they stay liberal. When Republicans appoint judges, it becomes a tossup as to
where they end up politically. "Let's see. Liberal judges
stay liberal, and conservative judges become liberal. IOW,
conservative judges get "converted" to liberalism as they learn more
about the Constitution, and as they gain more experience in working with it on a
daily basis.Hmmm. That might give you a clue about which side is
TRULY protecting that Constitution. ;-)
Partisanship has always been ugly. But it reached a new low when the Republicans
decided to oppose virtually everything proposed by the Democrats (particularly
the president they vowed to ruin), no matter how moderate or even conservative
the proposal might be.
I think twin lights has hit on the biggest reason for the polls, it is not a
change in the courts it is the drifting to extremes in our politics that has
lead to people viewing the courts unfavorably. I do also agree anytime the
courts take up a controversial issue those with strong feelings one way or the
other are going to grow more distrustful, it is just basic human nature not a
sign of shifts in the courts.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments