longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:08pm:


Factually not correct, longy. The Supreme Court was considered by Woodrow Wilson to be a 'permanent Constitution council' to revise the Constitution as they believed fit.

When the Supreme Court made the decision in favour of 'separate but equal' facilities for blacks and whites, was it interpreting the Constitution or making laws? Don't forget this was after the Civil War and the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.

50 years later said Supreme Court overturned the decision in Brown vs. Board of Education.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:09pm:


The American Constitution had many shortcomings. An alternative to giving the Supreme Court to determine constitutional issues is to establish a secondary court which rules solely on constitutional/bill of rights issues. Such a court would consist of judges or arbiters who held offices for a fixed term of 6 - 9 years (not re-eligible).

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:12pm:



Woodraw Wilson could think what he wanted, but it did not change the immutable fact that only a vote of the people could alter the constitution. SCOTUS was there to prevent breaches of the constitution, not alter it at their wishes.

I'm not sure what you think by your examples. I dont know if it was right or not, nor do I care  and nor does it matter in this discussion. Court's routinely overturn decisions based on either better arbitration or better arguments.

What truly separates great countries from the lesser ones is a powerful record of constitutional protection and the rule of law. Not perfect by any means but USA Australia UK and the like have that record while third world banana republics do not. Russia is the dismal economic failure that it is because they do not have true democracy and a system of constitutional and legislative law.

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:13pm:


And how dumb was that!  Same as our constitution that wanted the Senate to be a non-political States House. That silly idea lasted two weeks at best.

And i make the same argument for being against an elected Head of State in an Australian Republic. If you are voted on, then you need to campaign. If you need to campaign then you need to make promises. Ergo, a politician. You cannot have a non-partisan, no-politician official that is voted in. It was a truly dumb idea. Fortunately, most of the rest of their ideas worked out well and are currently keeping the insane resident of the WH caged.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:23pm:


Incorrect, the Constitution of US can only be changed by a three-quarters of the State Legislatures ratifying said amendment.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:23pm:


SCOTUS was there to interpret law as Jefferson stated later on. Do you know better than the Founders? longweekend58 wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:23pm:


The Supreme Court of the UK has no power to overturn legislation like SCOTUS and the High Court does.

This is the principle of 'parliamentary sovereignty' - that the Parliament is supreme.

The UK Parliament could pass a law tomorrow deporting all British Muslims and the Supreme Court would couldn't do a single thing.

If you ask me, the British have a better history of protecting civil rights of its subjects than America ever did.

So, in actual fact, having a Supreme Court doesn't necessarily mean that the country has a better system of 'rule of law'.

Panther wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:18pm:


Right. Policies like Obamacare should be invalid due to a government led by a tinted foreign monkey in a tree.

Hussein Obama's laws are up for review alright. Trump's going through them, one by one. He's making America great again one step at a time. First step, get rid of the gorilla. Second step, abandon his key policies.

Third step, incarcerate the Muslim scumbag and his paedophile witch Hillary. 

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:16pm:


that is an efficiency measure and little else. But being americans they would ELECT their judges and so make them as partisan and corrupt as everyday politicians. What mindless insanity exists to ELECT judges on any court?

Auggie wrote on Aug 21^st, 2017 at 5:31pm:



Did not know that. Thanks. It does not however change my argument that SCOTUS does not and should not be able to alter the constitution.