Do you think the Supreme Court should be abolished or disbanded?

[smahala1991]

Let's make all decisions available to the voters of the USA. They didn't even ask average Americans what their opinions were.

[BCA6010]

No, the supreme court is not, nor should any court be answerable to voters; that is the role of the legislative branch to draft new laws and constitutional amendments based on the will of the people/their constituents. The supreme court's role is to determine if a new law is constitutionally sound. If not, then it must be rejected, and either sent to the states to determine for themselves (which is what has happened with Roe and Casey) at which point the states must go through the same process with their own courts, or the legislature need to go through the significantly harder challenge of amending the constitution to make it so, in which case the Supreme Court can't really do anything except uphold it.

Roe was very poorly decided at the time, and even pro-abortionists acknowledged that it was a bad ruling based on a falsehood that would likely get overturned in the future if actual laws weren't passed in Congress to give the federal government legitimate authority. The thing is though, most politicians don't actually care about the substance of Roe and Casey; they (right and left) cared about the loophole created by it which gave precedent to use the often BS excuse of "it's not specifically stated, but implied in the constitution..." to pass other, unrelated laws, which flies completely in the face of the federalist system that the US Constitution was built on.

They would've had a much easier time amending the national constitution if they had done it at the same time or before the Affordable Care Act. Obama's administration using the government to sue a religious organization (The Sisters of the Poor) into compliance was grossly unconstitutional and a huge overstep that basically put the snowball in motion. If the issue of abortion was actually put to nationwide popular vote however, the most common view (by far) would be to allow abortions only up to somewhere between weeks 10 and 12, and taxpayer funding for it would definitely be a no-go.

As it now stands, the issue is entirely up to the states now, no state can take legal action against someone for going to another state for an abortion, and while approximately 30+/- states will or have passed various restrictions similar to above, there's about a dozen that will not only keep abortions available all the way up to the moment of birth, but they'll probably try to take advantage of that fact as an economic boon, as sick as that sounds. The ruling will also make it almost impossible to pass a nationwide ban too, so it's really not the "victory" that much of the pro-life movement wants to believe.

[Anonymous]

You know until Roe V. Wade in the 1970's that is exactly how the issue of Abortion was decided at the State level where all other forms of Murder and medical procedures are legislated by elected representatives, elected specifically for that domestic propose.

The problem with the Federal supreme court, is that they are no longer checked nor balanced by the other 2 branches and levels of government. Absence said checking and balancing they have assumed the absolute and unquestioned power of Oligarchs OVER the constitution and the entire republic.

Belive it or not this is the faught of the elected branches and levels of Government for not standing up to the court and refusing to simply enforce any edict.

The Court doesn't have an army or police force to force anyone to do what its members wants them to do. That is what the elected executive commands, and the legislator funds. The un elected court's only legitimate power is the power to decide if the people the executive arrest under the laws of the legislator are guilty.

The court's responsibility and power to enforce the Federal Constitution extents no further than refusing to find anyone guilty of violating any law the court find's unconstitutional.

The Default should be inaction or anarchy in that one area NOT action. But this power to refuse to act contrary to the constitution is shared by every elected office and State legislators. Otherwise the Court alone would rule as absolute oligarchs OVER the constitution.

An elected executive is suppose to do the exact same thing and ask himself if this act is consistent with his understanding of the constitution and refuse to act if he doesn't feel that way. The legislator must also do the same thing in passing said acts.

This is what Marbury v. Madison (1803) was really all about. The Court thought Marbury was entitled to the writ but recognized they could not make the executive in the form of Madison give the writ to Marbury. Because the executive had the same co-equal right to enforce the constitution. The result was nothing happened.

[LeeannaDD]

Thats not how the Supreme court works. They mere decided if the constitution applies or not to laws, judgements, etc. They decided they didn't have the authority in the first place to rule the way they did, so its up to states to make their own laws. Like every other law

[nawtee_me]

finally someone who knows and understands... The states have the rights to make laws in this case and not the federal government.

[StevieNix]

I agree with you 100%.

Should we go to war with Afghanistan? No
Should we go to war with Iraq? No
Should Joe Biden be allowed to be in politics for half a century? No
Should Nancy Peloisi be allowed to be in politics for half a century? No

[OlderAndWiser]

The job of the Supreme Court is not to decide cases on the basis of popular opinion but on the basis of Constitutional and statutory law. In the abortion case, the question was whether the US Constitution provides a right to abortion that cannot be restricted by the states. NOT whether abortion should be freely available.

You really want every legal decision based on popular opinion? Really.

Federal income tax will be eliminated, and then there will be vastly decreased financial support for infrastructure projects, maintenance of the military, national parks, etc.

Brpwn vs. Board of Education would probably have decided that separate but equal is hunky dory.

Homosexual and lesbian marriage would probably not be mandated. Your gun rights might be strictly curtailed in the interest of public safety, despite the Second Amendment.

So. . . you really want every legal decision based on popular opinion? You need to think this thing through before jumping to such conclusions.

[Cubus]

I wonder when people would understand that the Court DIDN'T make abortion illegal, but just left it to be decised on a state level.

[OlderAndWiser]

@Cubus People are just looking for an excuse to be mad. Any intelligent person understands what has happened.

[Stoner710]

It’s not the job of the Supreme Court to take public opinion into mind it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the constitution as it was written during the time it was written without becoming a new legislative body. If the Supreme Court becomes a new legislative body it has lost it right to exist.

SCOTUS is suppose to be outside the political process it’s not suppose to care about public opinion or what congress thinks it should do or even the president of the United States thinks SCOTUS should do it only cares about the constitution and what it says in the constitution and to interpret what the people who wrote the constitution and it’s amendments say At The Time it was writer. Not what people in 1973 wanted it to mean in 1973 but what the amendment meant in 1860. The founders and people who wrote the 14th amendment had they known that there constitutional amendments would be used to kill 60 million unborn babies in 50 years they would have put a constitution amendment banning abortion in our constitution. If you want a constitutional amendment in 2022 that backs abortion Congress not scotus can do that otherwise the issue goes back to the states. Same goes with obergefell gay marriage is not protected by the constitution and again had the founders known it would have been interpreted that was they would have banned gay marriage in the constitution itself

[Avicenna]

Since when do Congress and the President ask ordinary people for their opinions? Congress is the branch of government that is supposed to be closest and most responsive to the people, but it’s only responsive to corporations and the wealthiest people, as is the President in most afministrations.
The Supreme Court issues opinions on cases where there is a constitutional question. That’s not something you can consult with the general population about. And Congress can always pass legislation overturning a Supreme Court decision (and it will stand if it doesn’t violate the Constitution and isn’t vetoed by the President).

[Pudsmucker]

I agree with you. Congress has had the opportunity to make it into law for the last 50 years and have not moved upon it. Now they're moving to try to do something about it. Executive orders only last until the next president.

[Avicenna]

@Pudsmucker: Yeah, it’s one of those issues that should have been decided legislatively, with public debate. The fact that it was done through the SCOTUS politicized the court for decades and took an issue out of the legislatures’ hands. Roe was also a poor legal precedent that was very vulnerable to being struck down, another reason to do it legislatively with public debate, where ut would have had greater legitimacy in the eyes of the public.

[Avicenna]

Now, though, with the issue being in the hands of state legislatures which are closer to the people than Congress, ironically, ordinary peopke’s opinions are more likely to be heard.

[Bluemax]

Absolutely not, even though they handed us Dred Scott and Plessy vs. Ferguson and now this.

The U. S. public is just as likely to botch it as SCOTUS.

by the way, I'd wager dollars to donuts that the U. S. public would have decided the same as SCOTUS did during Dred Scott.

[TheorionMage]

The Supreme Court holds the same degree of privilege as the Delegates of the Electoral College.
BOTH ultimately shape THIS country's moral 'soul'...
BOTH should be held accountable to the majority Will of the grass roots citizenry,
NOT the influential monied few.
THAT was the intentions of a 'lifetime' appointment~

[exitseven]

It is funny how when things go against what they want the democrats are the first ones to scream about disbanding the supreme court.
When Maxine Waters said she will defy the Supreme Court decision she is violating her oath of office by not defending the Constitution. She should be immediately removed from office.

[Pudsmucker]

You're right, when the Democrats don't get their way they call unjustice. Go off and destroy the nation with protests throughout every city. They are the ones that added several justices over the years because of their feelings of unjust. The Democrats needed to get off their laurels and do something besides CBM.

[Dargil]

I do not. SCOTUS does not make law. It adjudicates law against the Constitution.
Since the majority would rule in any vote, how about we vote that all black people be deported to Africa? What's to stop that. They are barely 12% of the population. Good if liberals actually studied civics.

[FunkyMonkee]

Because they made a decision you didn't agree with? Isn't that kinda like you building a huge sand castle on the beach and you're JUST ABOUT finished and mommy tells you to let your little brother play with it, too and, because you don't WANT him to play with it, you completely destroy everything you just spent the last hour or two on?

[Surely]

I “believe “ that they are there to interpret the poorly written laws that our politicians write. Not to make laws. But that doesn’t seem to have been the case in a lot of decisions.
Like Amy B. said. “If they politicians wrote clearer laws. The Supreme Court wouldn’t be needed!”

[loveslongnails]

No, but I think it should be an even number of justices, 5 conservative and 5 liberal leaning, by design, and ties are not permitted, they HAVE to work things out! This court is fucking bullshit now. Kavanaugh flat out fucking lied during his confirmation and still got confirmed, and Coney is a disgrace to all women.

[Deathraider]

It definitely needs to be reformed. The intentions of the founders was that the justices would have a lifetime term to avoid potential corruption and that the justices would remain politically unbias. However, it should very much be evident that this was a political move.

[EnglishEuropean]

No, but those justices who are clearly unqualified or treasonous should be removed from the panel and replaced by well-qualified justices selected by their peers, i. e. by other judges, not by politicians. And their erroneous decisions should be corrected.

[noohair]

It is not about opinions of the people with the court. They rule on laws being constitutional or not. You vote for a legislature. They pass laws. If the law is perceived as unconstitutional, it goes through the federal court system. It can be resolved in different circuits or go all the way to the supreme court.

[leighbee]

No, it is healthcare. They wanna get rid of same sex marriage and birth control like we are back in the 1800's again...

[Aerissa_Jade]

Naw, what you are suggesting is mob rule and that is three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

Liberals in big cities would vote to fuck over rural America.

[Jessica405]

No, but it should not be allowed to overturn a ruling that has existed for years. No man or woman, sitting on a court bench, has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body.

[Bratsondanielle]

Aaahahhhaaa. No I don't think it should be abolished or disbanded. But funny idea thou.

[Literalbillionaire17]

I don’t think it should be abolished but I’m not a huge fan of them rn.

[DarkWinterNights]

You’re proposing majority rule.. aka mob rule. Which would inevitably lead to all of people rights being removed.

[NamerOfStars]

Of course not- but then, I didn't sleep through history class.

[JakeS00]

Why would they need to be abolished themselves? And why would they need to ask us anything?

[smahala1991]

We should be able to decide what we want legal or not. We vote on marijuana legalization and stuff like that

[WhitneySnow]

No, but they should be limited to term limits like Congress and the President.

[JohnK123]

They should do all people vote for big laws…
and if most people voted against abortion well then people couldn’t complain

[Jamie05rhs]

Um, that's specifically what the Supreme Court just said. To let the voters decide.

[lofii]

The voters of America are retarded. No

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read in my life

[WhiteBoyChill]

I agree. Let everyday Americans decide how the country is run. Consent of the governed

[Agape93]

At minimum. Preferably lined against a wall.

[BCRanger10]

Of course they didn't ask. That's not their job.

[ghop2]

By this logic, shouldn't OSHA also be abolished?

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yeah, I agree with you

[In_Trance]

You're kidding right?

[2021biguy]

They should be voted into office with term limits.

[BillyBalls]

Why not Congress and the Executive branch too?

[OddBeMe]

They should be voted in by national election.

[888theGreat]

no, and shouldn't be added to either

[AFretiredTXn]

No..

[Anonymous]

No. That’s stupid.

[H8INCHES]

HELL NO!!!

[fireforeffect]

Hell No!!!