The importance of the Supreme Court

[The Brain]

Seems to me you are redefining democracy to be something more specific than it is. It just means rule by the people. A democracy doesn't necessarily mean all people will be treated equally.

At its most reductive form, yes.  But we are talking about Liberal Democracy here.  That does necessarily mean that all people will be treated equally before the law.

What's this "we" stuff?

[crazy canuck]

Seems to me you are redefining democracy to be something more specific than it is. It just means rule by the people. A democracy doesn't necessarily mean all people will be treated equally.

At its most reductive form, yes.  But we are talking about Liberal Democracy here.  That does necessarily mean that all people will be treated equally before the law.

What's this "we" stuff?

The US is a Liberal Democracy, at least it is supposed to be.  That is what we are talking about.

[The Brain]

Seems to me you are redefining democracy to be something more specific than it is. It just means rule by the people. A democracy doesn't necessarily mean all people will be treated equally.

At its most reductive form, yes.  But we are talking about Liberal Democracy here.  That does necessarily mean that all people will be treated equally before the law.

What's this "we" stuff?

The US is a Liberal Democracy, at least it is supposed to be.  That is what we are talking about.

There's no me in we.

[crazy canuck]

You can talk about whatever you want.  But Berkut's post was about the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

[The Brain]

You can talk about whatever you want.  But Berkut's post was about the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You responded to my post. If you're talking to Berkut please respond to his posts instead of mine.

[crazy canuck]

You can talk about whatever you want.  But Berkut's post was about the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You responded to my post. If you're talking to Berkut please respond to his posts instead of mine.

I will keep that in mind in future.  In future also please let me know when you are talking about something other than the topic that is being discussed.

[The Brain]

You can talk about whatever you want.  But Berkut's post was about the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

You responded to my post. If you're talking to Berkut please respond to his posts instead of mine.

I will keep that in mind in future.  In future also please let me know when you are talking about something other than the topic that is being discussed.

FWIW I think you actually could read what I wrote.

[jimmy olsen]

I think the Dems should absolutely pack the court if they can.

Pack the court.

So, at the moment the court is 5-4; let's assume the Democrats try to pack the court by adding 2 extra justices making is 5:6. Then the Republicans get in power again and with the example having been made add 2 extra justices themselves making it 7:6; or perhaps a justice retired during the Democrat period and it is 4:7 and to fix this they have to add four new justices making it 8:7.

I am aware that nowhere in the Constitution does it say how many justices there should be on the bench so where does this stop? How long before a constitutional amendment has to be done to fix the number of Justices on the court?

It was a stupid "let the genie out of the bottle" idea when Roosevelt thought it up and I don't see how this is any different now.

Term limits, on the other hand, may be something the USA should explore as an option given the precedent is there with the term limiting of the President.

Arizona's GOP governor just packed the AZ court with 2 extra justices. The genie is already out.

[grumbler]

That's not the same thing. The Founding fathers designed a system of government for Christians by Christians. It be unfair to ask them to do anything but as it was their reality.

Many of the Founding Fathers were not Christians.  Adams, Jefferson, and Hamilton, for instance, just off the top of my head.  I think you actually know far less about this topic than you think. 

[Berkut]

Hamilton was a Christian. He was a rather moderate one to be sure, and certainly did not like the excesses of religion, but he was a member of his church (but rarely attended). He was active in the churches governance, and on his deathbed asked for final sacrements (which were at first refused because he was dueling, which was a sin).

I think he would describe himself as a Christian anyway.

Now the claim that the Founding Fathers were Christians designing a  Christian government for Christians by Christians is a load of bullshit. They went out of there way to make it NOT be that.

[jimmy olsen]

Because they didn't consider the fact that we would not all have the same religious background?

In what way did they not consider that fact?

I don't know how to prove the absence of something with more than "they didn't". 

You don't have to prove anything, simply explain WTF you are talking about. Because, after all, they did have differing religious ideas and specifically made a secular government.

They didn't anticipate the need for protestant groups to circle the wagon & throw their undying religious faith behind 1 party.

It's not a secular government, it's a christian government.

The president is clearly an atheist who only believes in himself and only goes along with some evangelical initiatives because he likes to oppress people who are different.

[Razgovory]

Hamilton was a Christian. He was a rather moderate one to be sure, and certainly did not like the excesses of religion, but he was a member of his church (but rarely attended). He was active in the churches governance, and on his deathbed asked for final sacrements (which were at first refused because he was dueling, which was a sin).

I think he would describe himself as a Christian anyway.

Now the claim that the Founding Fathers were Christians designing a  Christian government for Christians by Christians is a load of bullshit. They went out of there way to make it NOT be that.

As it happens a guy named Barton made this argument.  The book, called the Jefferson Lies, was considered the "worst history book in print."

There is a short letter written by George Washington to the Hebrew congregation in Newport, which I believe sheds some light on the issue of whether or not The United States was founded to be a government by Christians and for Christians.  First the address to Washington by the Hebrew Congregation

The address reads: "Permit the children of the Stock of Abraham to approach you with the most cordial affection and esteem for your person & merits—and to join with our fellow Citizens in welcoming you to New Port.

"With pleasure we reflect on those days—those days of difficulty, & danger when the God of Israel, who delivered David from the peril of the sword, shielded your head in the day of battle: and we rejoice to think, that the same Spirit who rested in the Bosom of the greatly beloved Daniel enabling him to preside over the Provinces of the Babylonish Empire, rests and ever will rest upon you, enabling you to discharge the arduous duties of Chief Magistrate in these States.

"Deprived as we heretofore have been of the invaluable rights of free Citizens, we now (with a deep sense of gratitude to the Almighty disposer of all events) behold a Government, erected by the Majesty of the People—a Government, which to bigotry gives no sanction, to persecution no assistance—but generously affording to All liberty of conscience, and immunities of Citizenship: deeming every one, of whatever Nation, tongue, or language, equal parts of the great governmental Machine: This so ample and extensive Federal Union whose basis is Philanthropy, Mutual Confidence and Publick Virtue, we cannot but acknowledge to be the work of the Great God, who ruleth in the Armies Of Heaven and among the Inhabitants of the Earth, doing whatever seemeth him good.

"For all the Blessings of civil and religious liberty which we enjoy under an equal and benign administration, we desire to send up our thanks to the Antient of Days, the great preserver of Men—beseeching him, that the Angel who conducted our forefathers through the wilderness into the promised land, may graciously conduct you through all the difficulties and dangers of this mortal life: and, when like Joshua full of days and full of honour, you are gathered to your Fathers, may you be admitted into the Heavenly Paradise to partake of the water of life, and the tree of immortality" (DLC:GW).

And then George Washington's response.

Gentlemen.
While I receive, with much satisfaction, your Address1 replete with expressions of affection and esteem; I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you, that I shall always retain a grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced in my visit to Newport,2 from all classes of Citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet, from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good Government, to become a great and a happy people.

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my Administration, and fervent wishes for my felicity. May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135

[viper37]

The president is clearly an atheist who only believes in himself

That might be true.

and only goes along with some evangelical initiatives because he likes to oppress people who are different.

That only reinforces the notion that America is quickly becoming a theology, not only in name this time.

It really doesn't matter if Hassan Rouhani is an atheist who only believes only in himself, the real power are the religious people behind him, the ones with real power.

[grumbler]

Hamilton was a Christian. He was a rather moderate one to be sure, and certainly did not like the excesses of religion, but he was a member of his church (but rarely attended). He was active in the churches governance, and on his deathbed asked for final sacrements (which were at first refused because he was dueling, which was a sin).

I think he would describe himself as a Christian anyway.

Now the claim that the Founding Fathers were Christians designing a  Christian government for Christians by Christians is a load of bullshit. They went out of there way to make it NOT be that.

Hamilton rejected (for most of his life; he was religious in his youth and old age) the divinity of Christ.  That's kind of the definition of a Christian.

However, as you note, that's moot to the point of the government they were creating.

[Ancient Demon]

There have been several examples in the last 50 years where the right has managed to basically create entirely new law on critical issues by consistently winning the "Who can pack the Supreme Court better" game.

Both sides have been trying to do this, not just the right. It's just that lately the right was better at it (or possibly just luckier).

Heller invented a new right that never existed before, on the basis of a theme that the NRA had been pushing for years. This was only possible by getting right wing justices on the court willing to overlook the actual law and history in favor of their political ideology and the power behind those who put them there (the NRA support for the Republican Party).

Maybe, but couldn't something similar be said about Roe vs Wade?