MYLOTTERS: Are you smarter than a Supreme Court Justice?
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
United States
June 29, 2008 4:12pm CST
Yes, it is true.
There are many myLotters smarter than a Supreme Court Justice.
At least one of the Supreme Court Justices is too ignorant of how our government functions to properly do his job. Who is that? Why is that?
Consider this quote.
"Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the dissenters in the 5-to-4 decision, surveyed a quite substantial body of empirical research on whether gun control laws do any good. Then he wrote: 'The upshot is a set of studies and counterstudies that, at most, could leave a judge uncertain about the proper policy conclusion.'"
It is not the job of judges at any level to decide if gun control laws (or any other law) do any good. The legislators decide whether or not any given law might or might not do any good. Judges make sure the law is interpreted as the legislature intended. Judges DO NOT DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE LAW OR WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A GOOD IDEA (except when constitutional issues are involved). The legislature decides what would do any good.
The WHO of who is too ignorant is Justice Stephen G. Breyer.
The WHY of how is he too ignorant is contained in the quote, "Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the dissenters in the 5-to-4 decision, surveyed a quite substantial body of empirical research on whether gun control laws do any good."
Instead of surveying empiracle research of the effectiveness of gun control (the legislature's job), the judge should have been surveying the constitution and the law to see if the law being challenged was legal. The legislature decides what might or might not work. Judges decide only on interpretation and contitutionality. What a doofus.
Jeesh... no wonder things are screwed up. Members of the top court in the land do not even understand High School Civics. There are myLotters I'd rather see as a Supreme Court Justice than Stephen G. Breyer.
What do you say?
4 people like this
7 responses
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
30 Jun 08
I agree, the Supreme Court is not there to set policy, and that is not their job.
Their only job is to determine whether a law is correct according to the Constitution.
Since the Constitution is written in plain English, it should take much education to understand what it says.
No empirical data is necessary for a document that is that simple to read and understand.
I think maybe the air is too thin in that high court, and he and three other judges there need to be brought down to earth son they can breathe again.
3 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
30 Jun 08
I'm guessing some of the justices just don't believe people as smart as themselves should have a role in our government as limited as specified in the constitution and desired by the founding fathers.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
30 Jun 08
I am sure the justice would tell us he has much experience and knows better than us. I'd tell him to first get checked for pre-dementia and take a remedial law course.
How about Justices have to re-pass the bar exam every 5 years? I like it!
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
29 Jun 08
Well some of us are smarter than Justice Breyer. You and me yeah we are, I just cannot say that about some of the people that are on MyLot.
I find that Justice Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia to be extremely intellegent maybe as smart as me, just jocking folk. I think Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens try their best to see how moronic they can be. The four loonies need help, and that is why they need to be replaced. True McCain will probably not even be able to appoint a judge with the high level of Constitutionial intellect like Thomas and Scalia but a four of Kennedy's would be better than those four.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
30 Jun 08
The liberal wing of the Supreme Court is mind boggling to me. The way they refuse to be limited by the constitution in their thinking in regards to rulings is impeachable but the House and Senate haven't got the courage to do it.
I have to agree about Thomas and Scalia. They are legal giants.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jun 08
Hello Red,
I take the very important lesson of: 'Respect your elders', quite seriously. However, if one has reached a pinnacle of age, without sufficient accompanying wisdom or commitment to perform the duties of their job well, then I simply cannot offer carte blanche respect!
As such, I'm totally with you on this one. The duty and obligation of the Supreme Court is crystal clear. Yet, they obfuscate that duty, in lieu of the more lustful role of ideological arbiter. Apparantly the job of relating the constitutionality of a matter isn't nearly as sexy as advocating for one's personal politics. Grrr!
I fully support impeachment proceedings. All Supreme Court justices take the same oath of office as the other two branches: "To uphold the Constitution". Last week's decisions can clearly be argued as having strayed from Constitutional principles to judicial activism. As such, yes, I believe that they should have to answer to the American people by way of impeachment.
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
30 Jun 08
Well, as I told someone earlier, the people who would have to do the impeaching, are not without sin themselves and would fear to be the ones to 'cast the first stone'.
Breyer and Ginsburg surely have earned impeachment.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5597)
• Tennessee Ridge, Tennessee
30 Jun 08
I agree Justice Bryer lost focus of his job when he made his decision based on whether he thought
the law would do any good. If the Justices ruled the law as unconstutional it never should have been allowed in the first place. When judges allow laws that violate constitutional limits, for any reason, they are failing in the job they were hired to do. The people of the USA depend on the Justices to exercise their jobs as part of a checks and balances government that makes sure our rights aren't trampled in the legislative and executive branches. Many MyLotters probably undertstand the limits of the judicial responsibilities better than Justice Bryer did when he made his decision based on functionality rather than constitutionality of the law.
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
30 Jun 08
I agree completely. Especially that many myLotters understand the role of SCOTUS better than Justice Bryer.
1 person likes this
@lvaldean (1612)
• United States
29 Jun 08
Well there you go, now we all now that they only thing the Supreme Court is supposed to do is interpret the law. We also know that for many years they have been writing new law which is why the parties work so hard to get their "president" into the oval office. They want to control the Supreme Court.
Who cares what the legislature does as long as the Supreme Court can undo it?
We wonder what is wrong...this should answer the question. Can a justice be impeached?
2 people like this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
30 Jun 08
Yes, justices can be impeached. The requirement to impeach a Supreme Court Judge is the same as for any other federal judge. Blatently ignoring their oath of office is grounds for impeachment. But, so many in the House and the Senate also ignore their oaths, no one wants to cast the first stone. That's my take on it, anyway.
2 people like this
@James72 (26790)
• Australia
30 Jun 08
God bless what we can only refer to loosely as the byproduct of "due process". Couple with political expediency; self serving ideologies and the ongoing manipulation by lobbyists etc with far more than the common good on their mind I am amazed that ANYTHING ever gets passed or decided on. Everyone always has an angle!
Is this a case of democracy going too far maybe?
1 person likes this
@redyellowblackdog (10629)
• United States
30 Jun 08
It is amazing anything gets done in Washington DC. In fact, little does.
2 people like this
