The idea is a Supreme Court justice who isn't a lawyer but has qualifications and respectability in other avenues.
Not a politician either or even business IMO. Hey, how about science? Neil deGrasse Tyson would look GREAT in a black robe.
I think the decision is pretty clear. The decision was that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was wrong in failing to consider religious issues in its case against the baker. In other words, freedom of religion is alive and well.
I think a better solution would be to go back to a 19th century understanding of the Supreme Court. One that had limited role generally.
So a rasta in america should be able to smoke all the ganga sacrament he desires without fear of unconstitutional interference in his religious freedom? Or does this just work for homophobe christians?
Based on your premise, Obergefel should have never been heard by the Supreme Court because the case didn't involve Constitutionally invalid laws. Kennedy just decided to make a, "right," out of thin air. Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagin are all devoid of ethical jurisprudence.
Why on earth would you hire someone to deal with the law who hasn't studied law? That's like saying I want a surgery performed by a doctor with no medical training.
Many years ago now, I tried to start a political movement to get the Supreme Court turned into an elective assembly. My plan was to have the country divided into nine regions, each justice being chosen by one of the nine regions, and serving nine years each, with one justice up for election each year. That way unpopular decisions could be rapidly overturned by newly elected justices. Stability would be assured with eight of the nine justices returning each year, but five justices could be replaced in just five years, giving a whole new majority on the court.
Article 3: to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects. That is different from "cases that arise." If there's a controversy, they can take it up.
No they can't and your link doesn't say they can. It actually doesn't refer to anything you are talking about. Its very clear how they can hear a case and it must be something brought to their attention. You are talking about original jurisdiction and that is very specific about when that applies, basically things like ambassadors. Even so, when they take one of these cases they generally are not set up to deal with it so either refer it to some lawyer or a lower court to decide. They don't have time to go through all the legal proceedings for starting a new case. The Court cannot decide they simply want to make a ruling on gun-control with a pending case or a ruling by a lower court first. The can be petitioned to expedite a case but that is still something that has to come into their Court.
I have stated numerous times - in many threads- that every sitting member of SCOTUS should be removed for dereliction of duty - failure to interpret law and the constitution on the basis of the founding principles 1) individual liberty is "ABOVE" the legitimate authority of Gov't and 2) authority of Gov't comes from "we the people" as opposed to "Divine Right/God" as was the case in the past. Then - we do not even elect these people. They are put in on the basis of political agenda and we are stuck with that agenda for life. One of the most basic principles of the Rule of Law is that Law/ rulings are understandable to the common man. (believe it or not). There is perhaps no bigger anathema to the principles of Justice - than a Judge (or group of Judges) who refuse to give reasons and/or rational for a rulings. This is - by definition - a kangaroo court.
Neil is a well scripted product of affirmative action. Good speaking voice. Carl Sagan on the other hand was very smart although too deified and a horrible voice. _____________________________________________________________ No not Science anymore than Joe the Plumber. There should be some excellence in the area of the Constitution just not necessarily being a "lawyer". Moi
Popularizing Science is sort of like teaching art, If you're a really talented artist you do art, if you're not you teach it, That being said Carl Sagan was a truly intelligent man and he had many cogent insights on Science and people. It's too bad he was so deadly serious. Science can only be really appreciated if you have an impish sense of humor like Einstein, as reality is essentially silly. We haven't had a really good science writer since Isaac Asimov died. It's too bad he would have been torn up by the MeToo movement as nerd girls used to regard it as a badge of honor to have him grope them at conventions. "Dr Asimov just grabbed my breast. The IQ of my chest is now 20 points higher" I heard one say ( What did they expect from the author of "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man"?)
The black robes make law as they go along America is ruled by 5 unelected lawyers who serve for life and answer to no one