Comments about ‘Richard Davis: Americans losing confidence in Supreme Court’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 12 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Pheonix, AZ

"It actually means that women have the right to control their own bodies."

We're talking about dispatching a totally separate entity that is not 'there own bodies.'

"If men could get pregnant, abortion would have been legal and universally accepted millenia ago."

That's why the creator decided to have the way more compassionate female bear offspring. The creator perhaps erred in not realizing that some females would become so calloused as to dispatch a potential person.

"Restrictions on abortion sound a LOT more appealing when you're not the one who has to suffer the consequences."

The only sufferer in abortion is the dispatched fetus.

one old man
Ogden, UT

I lost confidence in the Court that is now stacked with activist justices appointed by President Cheney and his little buddy when the came out with that ridiculous Citizens United decision that made WalMart and other mega corporations persons.

Informed Voter
South Jordan, UT

I think Roberts voted for Obamacare because he wanted to show the court was not locked into ideology, rather than ruling on the law. I was saddened and thought his rationale was political and way wide of the mark. Yes, I have no confidence in the court.

Kearns, UT

Truthseeker, I agree, I think Citizens United was one of the worst decisions coming out of the court in years (perhaps since Dred Scott). The funny thing is that President Obama verbally chastised the court in the State of the Union about it, yet Mitt Romney supported it when he said, "Corporations are people, my friend."

Mike Richards- there you go again. I'm sure your law degree and vast experience qualifies you to rule on often complicated Constitutional cases. The beauty of the Constitution is that it is very rarely a black and white document. The Founders created it that way. If it had been absolutely rigid, it would have fallen apart, along with this nation, years ago. You have 5/4 decisions because there are different ways of looking at things, different ways of interpreting things. Just because you don't like the outcome means, well, bupkis. You might want to go back and check on decisions- if they were all on party affiliation, then it would always be 5/4 according to you, but there are 6/3's and 7/2's and 8/1's and even, wait for it- 9/0's.


"Even the most ignorant among us knows that the most "learned" judges in America should know the law and that they should be able to apply the law."

Guess what?

There are gaps in the law, despite legislators best efforts to craft straight-forward laws without "holes." A simple biblical example of gaps in law would be the commandment "thou shalt not kill." Simply applying the law would prohibit killing in self-defense situations would it not? Our Constitution provides a framework, which even after it was adopted, left the framers disagreeing on the "correct" interpretation.

If applying the law were so cut/dried, black/white we wouldn't need the Supreme Court. We could use a computer to analyze the facts and spit out a result. The cases which typically make it to the Supreme Court are ones where there isn't a simple straight-forward answer.

J Thompson

I don't agree with you. We are not free to shoot a gun unless we harm someone. Where I live, no shooting is allowed within city limits, regardless whether others are present or not. Where I live, the school zone speed limit is strictly enforced, whether there are children present of not. Where I live, stealing is always a crime, even when someone has "too much money for his own good".

In other words, changing a definition to suit a "cause" is never right. If the "cause" is just, it doesn't need subterfuge.

One old man,
On the surface, some would agree with you, unless you told them that they couldn't buy their food, their clothing, their cars or their house from a "corporation. When the State gives a corporation the status of a person to enable it to do business, the State cannot restrict that business from speaking any more than it can restrain you from speaking. If you truly are offended by a corporation's speech, you are duty bound to boycott that corporation - even if it costs you dearly.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To Claudio: The word "slave" or "slavery" does not occur in the constitution. They used "importation of persons" to refer to the slave trade. The constitution mentions people who are "bound to service". And famously it just says "other persons", which everyone at the time understood to mean slaves.

salt lake, UT

@j Thomas
I have no idea wthat you were attempting to argue with your strange reasoning in your first paragraph given plainbrownrappers comment and given the fact that they clearly do present a potential harm to others but please explain your claim that equal protection under the law for something that presents no harm to society equates to changing the definition of that law?

There You Go Again
Saint George, UT

I'd have much more confidence, in the SCOTUS, if all the judges were extreme hard core conservatives...

Pheonix, AZ

"Polygamy is known to convey serious risks to women and children -- and courts recognize these risks, as I've shown in previous discussions."

It's not the marriage arraignment that's at fault. It's the teachings of the participants... as we can easily see in a certain religion in the mid-east... as I've shown in previous discussions.

"Likewise, incest and child marriage harm children."

Would you please explain how so-called incest (i.e. marrying a close relation including a sib) is harmful to either party?

As for child marriages... my neighbor was 21 when he married his wife at age 15. They have been married for 55 years, have a nice family and a loving relationship.

Springville, Ut


So you agree? Everything you mentioned is "implicit" in nature, not explicit. The Dred Scot decision was the first explicit governmental acknowledgement that slavery was constitutional.

Mainly Me
Werribee, 00

"...the court should not only consider the legal issues of a case but also majority opinion as well."

This is soooo dangerous! Just because a majority thinks that something is right, doesn't make it right. If only the Supremes were guided by what is right in spite of what is popular or politically correct.

Huntsville, UT

@Try My Best;

You're best is clearly not good enough. Marriage has never, ever been "one man/one woman only".

You are the one's trying to change the definition of marriage to that. You can even find that historically, same-sex couples were allowed to marry in many ancient civilizations, so your argument about the definition fails yet again.

A SCOTUS ruling that same-sex couples deserve to be treated equally by the government (including the use of the word "marriage") is really the only valid ruling if we are to adhere to the equal treatment clause (Amendment 14).

Try a little harder please.


@wrz --

"It's not the marriage arraignment that's at fault."

Don't try to make this about any one religion or culture.

As Chief Justice Bauman stated in that 2011 Canadian decision: "Polygamy's harm to society includes the critical fact that a great many of its individual harms are not specific to any particular religious, cultural or regional context. They can be generalized and expected to occur wherever polygamy exists."

Once again -- the courts recognize these dangers, even if you don't.

"Would you please explain how so-called incest...is harmful to either party?"

Most incest involves parent and minor child. The harm there is obvious.

Adult consenting incest is usually outlawed because of the risk of genetic defects in offspring -- harm to offspring.

We can argue about infertile adult incestuous couples if you like -- but there will be vanishingly few of these to worry about.

"my neighbor was 21 when he married his wife at age 15."

So what? I might drive home drunk one night and make it home safely. That doesn't mean drunk driving should be legalized.

Laws are about the **risk** of harm, not about the **certainty** of it.


@J Thompson --

"I don't agree with you. We are not free to shoot a gun unless we harm someone."

Actually, gun laws are good examples of the "first do no harm" principle.

Where the risk of public injury is high -- like in cities -- it's illegal to shoot a gun except under specific circumstances.

Where the risk of public injury is low -- like in the country -- gun laws are more relaxed. For instance, I live out in the country. Here, I can shoot off a gun as much as I like -- provided I do so in a "safe" manner (don't shoot it towards other people's houses and so on). In fact, I specifically called up my local police to verify this fact, soon after I moved here.

@wrz --

"We're talking about dispatching a totally separate entity"

Nope. It's not "totally separate" as long as it requires a uterus. Until then, the woman has the right to control her own body.

If you don't like abortions, then work to decrease the NEED for abortions. Volunteer for teen education. Hand out contraceptives.

Don't sit around whining about how terrible abortions are. Do something constructive.

2 bits
Cottonwood Heights, UT

The only reason I'm losing confidence in the Supreme Court recently is... it's becoming increasingly and increasingly POLITICALY motivated (not law based).

The judicial branch was supposed to be immune to political concerns. They were spared elections so they didn't have to pander to constituents and party bosses. They were intended to be politically independent. But that is not the case today (on both sides).

This is evidenced in the increasing number of split decisions (split directly down party lines).

IMO Supreme Court decisions should almost never end up evenly split down party lines with the party with the most supreme court judges at the time prevailing. That's not how it was intended to work.

I would THINK that the type of decisions the Supreme Court is faced with should almost always turn out practically unanimous. They SHOULD just be ruling on what the CONSTITUTION says (NOT expressing their OPINION or legislating what they think the Constitution SHOULD have said, in their opinion).

I would think 9 people reading the same document would come to pretty much the same conclusions. UNLESS rulings are based on politics and personal opinion instead of strict interpretation of the LAW itself.

Roland Kayser
Cottonwood Heights, UT

To Claudio: I disagree completely.

"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."--This section deals with the slave trade, everyone understood what it meant. It says that the slave trade may continue without interference until 1808. After 1808 congress could pass laws regulating the slave trade. Everyone at the time knew exactly what his clause meant, even though they don't say the words "slave", "slavery" or "slave trade".

Not only did the constitution make slavery legal, it forbade congress from enaacting any regulations or restrictions until 1808.

Springville, Ut


Again, a "wink wink" understanding is called implicit. We both agree on the meaning of the text. But it is an implicit mention of slavery, not explicit. The government did not explicitly say that there were no constitutional conflicts with slavery until the Dred Scot decision. Mr. Davis is correct. I am correct. You are correct. You just seem to not want to acknowledge it.

Hurricane, 00

Citizens United is the worst decision ever made by the Court. As soon as corporations start registering for the draft and fighting in a war I will believe they are individuals. Money has corrupted politics to such a degree that the people no longer have any control over candidates. (evidence--John Swallow)

Park City, UT

It seems that those that are "losing confidence in [the] Supreme Court" are those that do not understand the concept of the Supreme Court. The Court is a dispassionate arbiter of the law of the land. Public opinion, religion, political persuasion and personal opinion are irrelevant. You may agree or disagree with the decisions but they are the supreme law of the land that you must abide.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments