Several times MikeH has written something similar to this: "The SCOTUS RULES! (Or, more precisely, FIVE PEOPLE do. Think about it. FIVE PEOPLE decide life or death for millions.)"

On another thread, I asked Mike a questions about this, and he said it was off-topic, so I've moved the question here. My question to Mike is:



So, if Mike wants to explain his point, he can do it here without derailing the other thread.

My point? I thought it was clear. Five people can decide if millions live or die.

So, the SCOTUS (The Supreme Court Of The United States) rules.

Do you disagree?

I understand the point you are making. I'm curious as to what you think the actual problem is. Should we not have a Supreme Court? Should there be no check-and-balance concerning laws passed by Congress in respect to Constitutionality? What do you think is a better solution than having a Supreme Court?

Or is your concern not with the existence of the Court itself (it is established by the Constitution itself, as I pointed out), but rather with some of it's decisions?

These are questions that I have in response to your post.

1. Yes, we should.
2. Yes, we should have checks and balances; but we don't.
3. A Supreme Court that is representative, and that listens to representatives...in any case, except the ones we were discussing, each side of the case has a lawyer who presents arguments.
4. My concern is its structure, and the way it makes its decisions without listening to arguments for all the parties in the decisions we were discussing.

Now, what do you think of the decisions we were discussing?

OK, Mike, I think what you are saying is that even though you believe that we need to have a Supreme Court, you don't think in the case(s) you are interested in they didn't let both sides have adequate representation because one side didn't have lawyers presenting their side of the case. I don't know anything about the case(s) in question, but I would be interested in learning more - could you point me to some resources where I could read and understand more about what you are talking about?

Also, you write for about the third time, "Now, what do you think of the decisions we were discussing?" That's what the other thread is about, and I'm not involved in discussing that. My interest here, for which I started a new thread so as to separate the topics, is the Supreme Court and its role in government.

So, again, can you point me to someplace where I can read more about the specifics about representation in the case(s) you are interested in?

Just a bump - does anyone familiar with the abortion court cases have any idea what Mike is talking about when he says one side wasn't allowed representation?

What I mean is that there was a party to the case that had no representation.

And that is the unborn child.

In a case, involving children, if the best interests of the child are at issue a "next friend" or "Guardian Ad Litem" or some combination thereof...depending on the jurisdiction...is appointed to specifically make sure the interests of the child are taken into account.

In fact, issues involving children are deteremind based on "the best interests of the child"...not of the mother, not of the father, not of society, but of the child.

In the cases in question, I don't see that this was done.

If you are going to say, "Well, the unborn child in not a human being or not fully a person" and does not need a Represenative then you have Begged the Question by Assuming the truth of your conclusion in your premise.

That is why the child, unborn or not, should be represented.

After all, it is better to let the child live if you are uncertain, than believe something that is not true and allow the child to be killed.

But weren't there lawyers there arguing for the unborn child? I know almost nothing about this case, but surely there were lawyers arguing both in support and against the issue in question.

So far as I can tell they were arguing about the right, or not, to regulate medical procedures, not specifically for the " best interests of the child".

And the "best interests of the child" pretty much got left in the dirt in favor of the interests of the mother and society.

But in any other Family Law or Domestic case the "interests of the child" take precedence over the interests of the parents or society.

So we also have a double standard here.

My conclusion stands...The SCOTUS RULES, or more specifically, Five People do.

Mike writes, "My conclusion stands...The SCOTUS RULES, or more specifically, Five People do."

Yes, but you agreed that is OK: you said earlier that we should have a Supreme Court - that your problem is not with the Supreme Court itself but with lack of representation in this case.

It is true, that when it comes to deciding on certain legal cases the Supreme Court does rule, and since there are nine justices, in some cases five people can make an important decision.

What is wrong with that, in general, as opposed to your concerns about these particular cases?

I don't believe you have yet said what your position is on these particular cases.

From above, I wrote,



This is now the fourth time you've asked. You should remember my answer so you don't ask again.