Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Options
Weaken the supreme court by increasing power to the states
oregonblitzkrieg
Member Posts: 15,288
in Tug Tavern
How much does Mississippi have in common with California? How about New Hampshire and Texas? About as much as France and Germany, or Norway and Italy. When it comes to laws, culture and way of life, one size doesn't fit all. But the supreme court thinks that it should, and it wants to force its mores on every state in equal measure.
The supreme court has been overstepping its bounds for too many years and its time to reign them in. The supreme court can be weakened by increasing the power of the individual states. Look no further than the European Union as an example. These nations are bound by common monetary, defense, energy and other policies that allow them to act as a powerful whole on the international stage, while the member states retain much of what makes them different and unique. They don't have a supreme court telling them how to run their individual cultures.
In the United States the supreme court needs to be stripped of the power to strike down or institute laws in individual states unless those laws clearly violate human rights or pose a verifiable danger that a consensus of people agree is truly a threat to life or liberty. Each state should have the right to enact and strike down their own laws without interference from the supreme court.
The gay marriage debate is the supreme court's latest attempt to exert its unlawful power. States are free to legalize it, but it seems that every other week the supreme court is striking down the laws of states that forbid it. Washington has decided to legalize gay marriage and pot. Neither policy poses a threat to life and liberty. If that's what Washington wants, Washington should be allowed to have the kind of culture it wants there. Utah is against gay marriage and, like many other states, their law against it is being attacked by the supreme court. The citizens of Utah do not want gay marriage in Utah. They have the right to not let it become law there. They have just as much right to decide what kind of culture they want in their state as Washington does. They are largely Mormon. If they decide they want polygamous marriage to be legal and gay marriage not to be, it should be for them to decide, not Washington DC.
The supreme court has grossly overstepped its bounds in attempting to legislate the culture and morality of the individual states. Each state must be allowed to decide it's own path. Whether by majority vote or a consensus of elected officials, it should be for each state to decide the method of how they enact laws and how they strike them down. We should retain a common defense, monetary, energy and human rights policy that forbids discrimination in the workplace and in other public sectors. We shouldn't hire or fire anyone just because they're gay, because they're a stoner in their off-time, or because they belong to other minority/racial groups. If a state decides they don't want stoners smoking in public or gays redefining the definition of marriage, its a cultural issue that the supreme court needs to stay the fuck out of. it's not trampling on anyone's right to life or liberty by letting those states decide what kind of culture they want for themselves.
The supreme court has been overstepping its bounds for too many years and its time to reign them in. The supreme court can be weakened by increasing the power of the individual states. Look no further than the European Union as an example. These nations are bound by common monetary, defense, energy and other policies that allow them to act as a powerful whole on the international stage, while the member states retain much of what makes them different and unique. They don't have a supreme court telling them how to run their individual cultures.
In the United States the supreme court needs to be stripped of the power to strike down or institute laws in individual states unless those laws clearly violate human rights or pose a verifiable danger that a consensus of people agree is truly a threat to life or liberty. Each state should have the right to enact and strike down their own laws without interference from the supreme court.
The gay marriage debate is the supreme court's latest attempt to exert its unlawful power. States are free to legalize it, but it seems that every other week the supreme court is striking down the laws of states that forbid it. Washington has decided to legalize gay marriage and pot. Neither policy poses a threat to life and liberty. If that's what Washington wants, Washington should be allowed to have the kind of culture it wants there. Utah is against gay marriage and, like many other states, their law against it is being attacked by the supreme court. The citizens of Utah do not want gay marriage in Utah. They have the right to not let it become law there. They have just as much right to decide what kind of culture they want in their state as Washington does. They are largely Mormon. If they decide they want polygamous marriage to be legal and gay marriage not to be, it should be for them to decide, not Washington DC.
The supreme court has grossly overstepped its bounds in attempting to legislate the culture and morality of the individual states. Each state must be allowed to decide it's own path. Whether by majority vote or a consensus of elected officials, it should be for each state to decide the method of how they enact laws and how they strike them down. We should retain a common defense, monetary, energy and human rights policy that forbids discrimination in the workplace and in other public sectors. We shouldn't hire or fire anyone just because they're gay, because they're a stoner in their off-time, or because they belong to other minority/racial groups. If a state decides they don't want stoners smoking in public or gays redefining the definition of marriage, its a cultural issue that the supreme court needs to stay the fuck out of. it's not trampling on anyone's right to life or liberty by letting those states decide what kind of culture they want for themselves.
Comments
There's this thing called the supremacy clause that defines federal law as superior to state law.
Anti-gay marriage laws are unconstitutional, so states shouldn't be able to pass them.
So if the southern states decide they want to re-institute Jim Crow it's a cultural issue that the federal government should stay out of?
I don't think you thought this one through.
I don't think this issue has been decisively settled and is still a matter of opinion. SCOTUS presumes to speak for the entire nation without taking into consideration the differences between demographics. What it really comes down to is this. Would you rather have 9 people deciding cultural issues (what if their opinions disagreed with yours), or is it better to let the 300 million people they presume to represent be heard? This is the course of a nation we're talking about here, not the political agendas of 9 individuals. It's fairly well established and understood that slavery and segregation are wrong. This would fall under the umbrella of human rights at the federal level, included in the OP. We don't have gay fountains and straight fountains. The issue really comes down to marriage. Each state should be allowed to form or maintain its own definition of marriage, not the supreme court. This would represent the will of the people far better than 9 unimpeachable judges.
There's a reason why the Articles of Confederation were a miserable failure.