Here is another example of how the SCOTUS RULES!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/ ... etter.html

What ever you think of the issue, whether you support it or not, whether you think some parts should be changed or not, whether you think it matters that the elected representatives of the people passed it...it doesn't matter.

Five People will decide.

Irrefutable proof that the SCOTUS RULES. In this case, if you can be ordered to buy health insurance, you can be ordered to do anything. And don't try to say that you could not be ordered to do something "Unconstitutional"...if the SCOTUS says its Constitutional it is Constitutional.

Whether you are ordered to buy insurance, or a certain car, or submit to a death panel, if they say its Constitutional it is. The Declaration of Independence is DEAD.

In addition to the philosophy and statistics refresher courses you so badly need, be sure you also sign up for remedial civics.

Who do you think decides what is Constitutional? Or do you even know?

(Hint, its not the Declaration of Independence.)

The Bible. Duh.

Mike, by virtue of the Constitution itself, as well as centuries of case law, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbitrator of certain kinds of cases, and the thus, in some cases, five people are the deciding factor. I asked you before, and you said you think we should have a Supreme Court, and yet you keep sounding like you object to the whole idea of a the Supreme Court existing.

So what exactly do you object to about the Supreme Court?

Its unrepresentative nature.

Now, Jack, do you dispute that the SCOTUS RULES and has the power of Life and Death over you?

We don't want federal judges pandering to political pressure, Mike... else we'd have a court full of Romney's and all legal objectivism would go out the window in favor of political popularity contests. The Framer's were fearful of rash decision-making. They built in checks against it - a bicameral legislature, an electoral college, federal judges with lifelong appts.

When anti-science crybabies can't get their ideas into science journals and science classrooms, they turn to politicizing the scientific process... And now we see that when policy crybabies can't their ideas into legislation, they want to politicize the federal bench. Yuck, Mike!

The legislature, electoral college, federal judges, whoever and whatever...

The SCOTUS TRUMPS THEM ALL.

Five People...ALL Politcal Appointees...rule. (And OF COURSE there is no political maneuvering in the Appointments! Perish the thought!...snicker...)

Mike, you say you object to the "Its unrepresentative nature" of the Supreme Court.

How would you change things? What would make the Supreme Court more representative?

And more representative of what? What is being unfairly representative in, for instance, the health care case?

Jack, I answered your question; now if you would like to answer mine I can go into more detail on your new questions.

The question you answered, but not really, was that in the abortion cases the unborn child was not represented, and you didn't respond when I pointed that surely there were lawyers arguing botd side of the case. Is that your only complaint? It doesn't seem so.

So, how would you change things? What would make the Supreme Court more representative?

And more representative of what? What is being unfairly representative in, for instance, the health care case?

Or do you just object to some of the Supreme Court's decisions?

You keep saying things like "SCOTUS RULES", but in fact in certain instances that is what they are supposed to do. Would you just stop all court cases at the next level down in the courts? It seems that would just make the problem you see worse. How are we to resolve the most pressing legal cases if we don't have someplace where the judicial decision is final?

I don't agree with every decision the Supreme Court makes, but I support the fact that that is their job and I support the rule of law which gives them the authority to make those decisions.

Looking back, I think the questions you wanted me to answer were "Now, Jack, do you dispute that the SCOTUS RULES and has the power of Life and Death over you?"

I agree, and I have been explaining why, that in some cases the Supreme Court rules, because that is their Constitutional and legal job. As I just said, I may, and do, disagree with some of their decisions, but I support the Supreme Court in general and the role it plays in our society. I can't think of any cases where the Supreme court has "the power of Life and Death" over me, though.

You can't think of any cases where the SCOTUS has the power of LIfe and Death over you

They are doing that this very day, as they hear the arguments on ObamaCare...they will decide what kind of health insurance you get, or whether you will even be able to get it at all.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/ ... etter.html

The elected representatives of the People be damned.

I always find it ironic that Atheists and those who are moral relativists and don't believe in Free Will are often so willing to bend to the power of All Powerful Institutions to give meaning to their lives.

Mike writes, "I always find it ironic that Atheists and those who are moral relativists and don't believe in Free Will are often so willing to bend to the power of All Powerful Institutions to give meaning to their lives."

Bullshit, Mike - this issue has nothing to do with atheists. It has to do with right-wing politics. I'm done talking with you about this.