Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 72
Thanks Tree49Thanks

Thread: Majority of Americans Favor SC Ruling on What Constitution Says Today

  1. #1
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,598
    Thanks
    50483

    From
    So. Md.

    Majority of Americans Favor SC Ruling on What Constitution Says Today

    This is interesting.

    A majority of Americans (55%) now say the U.S. Supreme Court should base its rulings on what the Constitution “means in current times,” while 41% say rulings should be based on what it “meant as originally written,” according to a recent Pew Research Center report on American democratic values.

    This represents a shift in public opinion, which was divided on this question for more than a decade. When Pew Research Center last asked the question in October 2016, 46% said the high court should base its rulings on what the document means in current times, while an identical share (46%) said rulings should be based on what it meant when originally written.


    Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (78%) now say rulings should be based on the Constitution’s meaning in current times, higher than at any previous point on record and up 9 percentage points from 2016 (69%). Just three-in-ten Republicans and Republican leaners now say the same, an 11-point increase from 2016 but little changed from GOP views in the years prior.


    Majority now say Supreme Court should interpret Constitution for today | Pew Research Center
    Thanks from Blueneck

  2. #2
    Shut up and vote Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    49,639
    Thanks
    27707

    From
    Ohio
    That makes sense since a lot of issues we have now were non-existent then.
    Thanks from Babba, HCProf and MaryAnne

  3. #3
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,598
    Thanks
    50483

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    That makes sense since a lot of issues we have now were non-existent then.
    That's why originalism is silly.
    Thanks from Blueneck, Devil505, HCProf and 1 others

  4. #4
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    31,968
    Thanks
    371

    From
    Tennessee
    What a phony poll question.

    What it means to whom today?

    Liberals.

    LOL!!
    Thanks from orangecat

  5. #5
    Cat-tastic Babba's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68,598
    Thanks
    50483

    From
    So. Md.
    Quote Originally Posted by roberthughey View Post
    What a phony poll question.

    What it means to whom today?

    Liberals.

    LOL!!
    Whut?

  6. #6
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,984
    Thanks
    12239

    How are there any people thinking it should be "what its intentions are"? That's not how laws work. You can't go back and say "but we meant this". If we did that, people would only be allowed to own muskets.

    The beauty of the constitution is its simple wording, which allows for lots of interpretation and addition of things they could not have predicted. And the courts are the ones who decides how current situations fit into the law

  7. #7
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    55,765
    Thanks
    3053

    From
    Washington state
    The problem with this idea is the law could be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to be rather then what the Constitution says. Instead of laws we have 9 people in robes making laws based on current social experiments invented by a Liberal Utopia. The SC would be puppets for the Liberal agenda. Fortunately what Trump is doing now will prevent that from happening for generations
    Thanks from THOR

  8. #8
    Shut up and vote Addiction Solitaire Champion, Double Deuce Champion, Queen Jewels Champion, Ray Ray Shuffle Champion, Twins Champion, Blow Up: Arcade Champion, Bunch - Time Trial Champion, Znax Champion, Zoo Keeper Champion, Sobics School Champion, Swap a Smiley Champion, Makos Champion, Dino Drop Champion, Flower Frenzy Champion, Some Puzzle Champion, Funny Bubbles Champion, CubeZ Champion, Dinky Smash Champion, Fun Fun Animals Champion, Fruit Fabriek Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Rainbow Monkey RunDown Champion, Raft Wars Champion, Crime Puzzle Champion Blueneck's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    49,639
    Thanks
    27707

    From
    Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Babba View Post
    That's why originalism is silly.
    Didn't the SCOTUS just rule on something about cellphones?

    Here we go:


    The Supreme Court says police generally need a search warrant if they want to track criminal suspects' movements by collecting information about where they've used their cellphones.

    The justices' 5-4 decision Friday is a victory for privacy in the digital age. Police collection of cellphone tower information has become an important tool in criminal investigations.

    The outcome marks a big change in how police can obtain phone records. Authorities can go to the phone company and obtain information about the numbers dialed from a home telephone without presenting a warrant.

    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court's four liberals.

    Supreme Court decides police generally need a warrant to track cell phones

    Interesting case in a lot of ways.


    The court ruled in the case of Timothy Carpenter, who was sentenced to 116 years in prison for his role in a string of robberies of Radio Shack and T-Mobile stores in Michigan and Ohio. Cell tower records that investigators got without a warrant bolstered the case against Carpenter.

    Investigators obtained the cell tower records with a court order that requires a lower standard than the "probable cause" needed to obtain a warrant. "Probable cause" requires strong evidence that a person has committed a crime.

    The judge at Carpenter's trial refused to suppress the records, finding no warrant was needed, and a federal appeals court agreed. The Trump administration said the lower court decisions should be upheld.

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing Carpenter, said a warrant would provide protection against unjustified government snooping.

    The administration relied in part on a 1979 Supreme Court decision that treated phone records differently than the conversation in a phone call, for which a warrant generally is required.

    In a case involving a single home telephone, the court said then that people had no expectation of privacy in the records of calls made and kept by the phone company.

    That case came to the court before the digital age, and the law on which prosecutors relied to obtain an order for Carpenter's records dates from 1986, when few people had cellphones.

    The Supreme Court in recent years has acknowledged technology's effects on privacy. In 2014, the court held unanimously that police must generally get a warrant to search the cellphones of people they arrest. Other items people carry with them may be looked at without a warrant, after an arrest.
    I can't even imagine how one decides things like these by trying to make some weird analogy between phones and "papers". It just doesn't work.
    Thanks from Babba

  9. #9
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    64,426
    Thanks
    32655

    From
    Vulcan
    Both extreme sides of this debate are nonsense. The Constitution does not change meaning over time. Neither is originalism a valid theory, either.
    Thanks from Jets, boontito, bajisima and 1 others

  10. #10
    Veteran Member Dr Sampson Simpson's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    21,984
    Thanks
    12239

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The problem with this idea is the law could be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to be rather then what the Constitution says. Instead of laws we have 9 people in robes making laws based on current social experiments invented by a Liberal Utopia. The SC would be puppets for the Liberal agenda. Fortunately what Trump is doing now will prevent that from happening for generations
    that's how law works. Who the is supposed to decide what things mean? You? No, the judges do. Your statement is so idiotic "The problem with this idea is the law could be interpreted to mean whatever the court wants it to be rather then what the Constitution says" What, is the constitution a living person that can talk? Who decides what the constitution says? Judges of course, just like the constitution says

    That is a huge part of law, arguing on the meaning of laws and contracts. You don't get to decide after the fact "hey, I really meant this". law doesn't work that way. The ignorance of the right is astounding
    Thanks from Babba and jacobfitcher

Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 15th November 2017, 12:58 PM
  2. Replies: 35
    Last Post: 29th July 2017, 09:09 AM
  3. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 2nd November 2016, 06:51 AM
  4. Numbers Favor Republicans Senate Majority
    By Divine Wind in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 17th February 2013, 03:19 PM
  5. 8-1 USSC Ruling in Favor of Kansas Anti-Gay Church
    By Singularity in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 5th March 2011, 05:39 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed