What should Conservative Supreme Court do?

Try again with your poll question, and this time do something other than the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?" That is unless you are speaking only to hysterical and hate-filled leftists; in which case you should have said.

 

Overturn Griswold v. Connecticut.

That is where all the mischief started.

 

Why is there not an 'Uphold a literal, 'original intent' interpretation of The Constitution' option?

We're not looking for an activist SC here.

Your poll is junk

 

They take a case that challenges Griswold vrs Connecticut.( this case granted the right of privacy in ones own home )

They reverse the ruling on that. Which, technically, from what I have been able to read, would be, LEGALLY speaking, based on the constitution, the correct decision. No where does the constitution give one a right to privacy of any kind.

Once you can get that over turned, all the rest are simple, since abortion, gay marriage, contraception, and so forth, all hinge on this ruling.

 

But what if the playing field isnt level to begin with? What if one believes that institutional racism still exists in America in very broad way?

 

Name one.

 

To be honest, I don't know if the "playing field" is level or not since I've been self employed for much of my life.
I'm not naive enough to think that my being white did not help my being somewhat successful in the different, numerous vocations I have undertaken.
Except for teaching, many of the jobs I've had were doing dirty, weird, strenuous and/or dangerous jobs that no one else would want to do.

I was an Airborne Combat Engineer in the Army, left the country after being discharged & worked Black Market jobs in Europe while studying in Germany. After wandering throughout the Balkans, Turkey & Mid East, I had a brief, tumultuous marriage, got divorced, left town, worked on a defective pile driver carrying & holding corrosive creosote coated pilings in stinging nettle infested water. Occasionally, the 500lb weight would miss the top of the piling and almost hit me. I saved my money, bought a fishing boat & tonged for oysters until it sank with me on it.

During Grad. school, I worked on an Emergency Psychiatric Unit for a large inner city where I was slightly stabbed only once then worked in the Juvenile Justice system as a Case Worker for emotionally disturbed adolescents.
Afterward I bought, renovated, rented & sold 6 historic homes, Bartended, taught High School, etc etc until I taught myself Blacksmithing & for about 20 - 25 years designed & made everything from wrought iron gates, to Art Deco wine racks to reproduction, Elizabethan surgical instruments.
Some people call me an "artist" & I still do some blacksmithing but it's too hot to swing a hammer by a 2,500 degree fire today, hence this lengthy response.

To answer your question, finally:

I really don't think that I could disagree with them especially if they could provide examples.
I do think that Affirmative Action unfairly burdens minorities in that others may assume that they got their position only because of their minority status, not their qualifications.

 

And what if we find out that racism is naturally inherent and won't ever completely go away?

 

You really don't know how things work do you? You really shouldn't be here, you're not qualified.
The Supreme court can't do any of those things. They are there to interpret the law, not write it. They can't ban anything. They can't do anything unilaterally - there must be a case brought before it. They decide on the constitutionality of the lawsuit and uphold it or declare it unconstitutional, and if so those that wrote the law have to rewrite it. Now put a slice of bread on either side of your head and make an idiot sandwich.

 

I like how the options read "make illegal/make illegal." The SCOTUS doesn't do that. They interpret the constitution. Where's that option? I vote "follow the constitution."

 

Hmm. Looks like -someone- here doesn't understand how the judicial system works.
Several someones, actually.

 

On a personal level sure. I completely agree. It will never ever go away.

But it CAN be done away with at an institutional / legal level.

 

I'm sure there are likely a number of avenues people opposed to R v. W could pursue. In G v C, the 14th Amendment remains a strong argument against the original law.

The Supreme Court is not going to just rule, they must take on a case the specifically relates to a Constitutional question.

It would be hard to imagine one that would seek to establish a states right to (Wiki) "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ... nor deny any person the equal protection of the laws,

 

sad day for people who want to kill defenseless humans eh? How important is trying to exterminate the black race to you pro abortion crowd anyways?
Black women make up 6% of our population but 35% of the abortions. Can you explain why your extermination rate for blacks is higher than whites? I mean, I say let them all have a shot at life... black, white, green or purple....what about you? Tell us why you guys are exterminating blacks at a higher rate?

 

Yay, a lot of those choices are for more individual liberties and I hope the SCOTUS would commit to reigning in the government over reach.

 

I think your poll shows what conservatives are really interested in, i.e., doing away with reverse racism (affirmative action) and defending the 2nd Amendment (gun rights). The rest of your questions are a catalog of leftist fears but not really on the right's agenda.

 

no, I want the issue left to the states to decide each for itself and I think that is the direction the new court will take. That means no abortion in places like Arkansas, Mississippi and Texas just to name three but no judicial interference in legal abortions in places like California, New York or Mass.

 

Interpret law according to the Constitution. Many of your choices should be state right issues. Judicial activism is not suppose to be the job of the Supreme Court. The problem is that the Congress and House of Representatives have abandoned their responsibilities to govern and make hard choices, least they be in danger of losing there seat, and let the President, courts and different departments in government make rules and laws.

 

Take away power from the government.

 

The Constitution clearly says that we have more rights than are specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
(see the 9th Amendment)

 

Outlaw affirmative action.

 

Ban all forms of Reverse-Discrimination (a.k.a., "affirmative action"). These have always been completely unconstitutional in the first place, and yet they've been warmly promoted and protected by the rabid liberal Left for decades!

"Give the police more power"...? I voted for it, but it would really mean RESTORING TO THE POLICE the power they SHOULD have in bringing criminals to justice, and in seeing them prosecuted and convicted for their crimes. Ever since "Miranda", we've seen our police forces increasingly beaten down by liberal judges so that it's harder and harder for the police to protect and serve "We, the People"....

 

You really believe that suspects shouldn't be told their rights? Why? Our government run schools do a terrible job teaching civics. The very least we can do is let a suspect know they have the right to not talk and they can have a lawyer. Without Miranda, a suspect can ask for a lawyer and be told no.

 

I was referring to a point-in-time for "Miranda", not "Miranda" itself. Perhaps I should have said 1966, because that is almost exactly the point at which the courts became infested with liberal judges who made it pure hell for prosecutors and police to get charges filed against suspects, or for convictions and sentences to be passed against criminals!

Ah, 1966. I remember it well. It was a time of liberal Democrat president, Lyndon Johnson, Vietnam, increasing race-hatred, the so-called "War on Poverty", and the headlong plunge of this country into hatred, suspicion, and exhausted frustration with just about everything.... And few were more angry and frustrated than the poor policemen who tried as hard as they could to maintain 'law and order'....

 

That's not really an answer. Do you want to do away with telling a suspect their rights?