Quantcast

Do You Think Supreme Court Doing A Good Job?

(▪‿▪)DoctorWhoGuru(▪‿▪) 2012/06/08 13:21:29
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Supreme Court Poll: Only 44 Percent Of Americans Approve Of The Job The Court Is Doing

Read More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/08/supreme-c...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • lstl5 2012/06/08 13:56:39
    No
    lstl5
    +6
    They are biased in everything they decide. What is the point of even having them review cases when they do that? They are not supposed to be political at all. Citizens United was the worst decision they made in recent history. Obama said that at his state of the union and now we see that is so very true.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Mike 2012/06/13 15:58:22
    No
    Mike
    +1
    THEY ARE CORPORATE WHORES
  • Jackie G - Poker Playing Pa... 2012/06/10 18:04:03
    Yes
    Jackie G - Poker Playing Patriot
    +1
    It is a thankless job because people get too emotional about issues and the Court deals in the law - if they decide the way you want, you are happy, happy and if they do not, they are partisan hacks. Time to read their decisions and see how they are made and on which legal tenants - disagree but understand.
  • SmittenKitten 2012/06/10 16:06:33
  • TheTailor 2012/06/10 03:55:54
    Yes
    TheTailor
    +1
    Why would the opinion of the American public matter?
  • 4570GOVT TheTailor 2012/06/10 11:53:43
    4570GOVT
    Indeed ! Our opinion matters little ..........
  • Gracie - Proud Conservative 2012/06/10 03:27:57
    Yes
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    A poll conducted by the New York Times and CBS! LMAO! I can't wait until they announce their Obamacare decision...then we'll see.
  • TheTailor Gracie ... 2012/06/10 03:59:41
  • Kat 2012/06/10 03:21:26
    No
    Kat
    +1
    Majority need replaced. They are no longer voting based on the criteria they are supposed to. Too many are political hacks backing their party politics.
  • TheTailor Kat 2012/06/10 03:54:43
    TheTailor
    So let's examine your stance. The majority should be replaced ... with say, those that lean to the other political party?
  • Kat TheTailor 2012/06/10 03:59:07
    Kat
    With ones that will stand with the constitution, not the parties.
  • TheTailor Kat 2012/06/10 04:04:35
    TheTailor
    And in what cases didn't they uphold the constitution? The only one I remember is Kelo v. The City of New London, that is being overturned by the states and the house.
  • stevmackey 2012/06/10 03:19:49 (edited)
    Yes
    stevmackey
    Especially if they check the problems in government! They are not supposed to be right or left wing. Their job is to prove the Constitutionality If they do that that are doing their job. They also need to prove that the President is doing what he is supposed to do. That is because he does not thinks that the Constitution is not valid.
  • wildcat 2012/06/09 01:36:33
    Yes
    wildcat
    +1
    so far so good: 44% in about where Romney and Obama are right now. 44% is a heck of a lot better than Congresses 8%
  • flaca BN-0 2012/06/08 21:18:40
    No
    flaca BN-0
    +3
    With so many significant splits and 5-4 votes in recent times, it begs the question: is the constitution that lacking that SCOTUS cannot rule using it, but has to make widely varying opinions? It seems they are deciders instead of upholders.
  • Don 2012/06/08 16:05:24
    Yes
    Don
    +1
    They will on Monday when they toss Empty Suit Care.
  • luvguins 2012/06/08 15:46:53
    No
    luvguins
    +5
    There are 5 right wing activist judges who have voted in favor of corporations since in power. Two are bribed by the Koch brothers, Scalia, and Thomas who have been to the Koch's soirees. Citizens United will go down in history as one of the worst decisions that the SCOTUS has made.
    Corporate SCOTUS
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/10 03:29:18
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    +1
    Tell me your criteria for calling them activists. When someone votes down decisions based on the Constitution, it doesn't make them activists.
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/10 03:38:28
    luvguins
    +3
    Activists just skirt the true intent of the Constitution to rule in favor of something. Remember when Sotomayer and Kagan were being vetted the GOP did not want them and kept hammering about activism. SCOTUS judges can be swayed politically. Whatever president is in power and appoints a SCOTUS judge is accused of political activism for those he puts up.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/10 15:35:14 (edited)
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Actually the liberal definition of activism stems from how many times they overruled the lower court decisions, not about deviating away from the original intent. I find it odd that you believe it's the true constructionists that are the ones deviating. How do you arrive at that?

    Progressives believe that the Constitution was only relevant to the time, they consider it a restraint on their ability to change with society. Progressives do not believe in the Declaration of Independence, especially that our rights come solely from our Creator. They've been quite open about what they believe if you bothered to read their writings. Woodrow Wilson openly wrote about his disdain for the Constitution. FDR tried to pack the Supreme Court with like-minded justices to get what he wanted.

    The key to making the Constitution an "organic document" comes in every majority decision. These are not simply about the current decision, they pack them with phrases to take the concept to the next level. That's how they built up Roe v Wade, that's how they made a simple phrase "wall of separation" into something people believe was part of the original intent.

    The activists are judges who take the original intent, stretch it as far as it will go and then claim it's Constitutional. The idea that the strict constructions are deviating from original intent is absurd and ridiculous.
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/10 15:48:21
    luvguins
    +1
    Both parties have tried to pack the court with people who will further their views. That is a given fact. Conservatives over ridden say the same about the court. The SCOTUS is as political as Congress. True constructionists do not go to Republican think tank meetings with the Koch brothers like Scalia and Thomas do.
    After Jefferson's separation letter future justices have all taken that to heart as it should be to prevent a theocracy.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/10 16:02:43
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    No, FDR's idea of court packing meant adding additional justices, not picking justices that he agreed with. The justices obviously have the right to their own political views BUT they should follow the original intent. What should be required is a respect and belief in our form of government and Constitution. When Ruth Bader Ginsburg went to foreign soil and demeaned our Constitution I thought she should have been removed from the bench.

    It wasn't after Jefferson wrote the letter, it was 100 years later when it was used by justices. History shows what our Founders believed and to use a half sentence from a private letter from one Founder is the activism that I'm speaking of. To continue to repeat what it was falsely is either activism or intellectual laziness, I assume the first.

    I don't think your opinions are based on any historical facts, just modern talking points and feelings.
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/10 16:15:47
    luvguins
    Then Scalia and Thomas should be removed. Plus it is foolish to follow a document historically when it isn't 1783 now, and no one knows what the Founding Fathers would draw up or interpret for the 21st. century.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/10 16:19:17
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    Why should they be removed? I didn't hear them trashing America on foreign soil, did I miss it?

    You totally miss the point that it's still completely relevant, it's about human nature and government. It is not impeding progress.
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/10 23:34:57
    luvguins
    Ever heard of conflict of interest? Or Thomas's wife heading an outfit to repeal the ACA?

    I did not hear the president trash America on foreign soil. He was honest about any shortcomings we face though. Something the GOP never is.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/11 02:06:01
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    If we're going to restrict the actions of the wife, you are going to have a couple of problems with some other spouses. If anyone should recuse themselves it should be the former Solicitor General, Elena Kagan. That is the Justice herself, not a spouse.

    The trashing I was speaking of was Ginsburg but certainly Obama has been guilty of it on numerous occasions.

    Should Kagen recuse herself?
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/11 03:52:31
    luvguins
    She should stay if Thomas is not going to recuse himself, and I believe he has already said he won't.

    NO ACA, and we go back to all the health insurance companies abuses.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/12 00:53:46
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    If Kagen won't recuse herself, no one should. I think the answer will be very clear and I don't think anyone but Pelosi thinks it will stand. We need to put the consumer back into healthcare, that's the key. No one cares how much money something costs when it's covered by the insurance company.
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/12 02:02:11
    luvguins
    Yeah, sure the consumer contols the health insurance industry. That is laughable. They will go back to denying care and raising premiums....wait for it if the ACA goes down. More hospitals will be closing too losing money unable to handle the growing uninsured. If Thomas won't recuse neither should she.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/12 02:05:50
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    No, the consumer doesn't because we've stuck the insurance companies right in the middle. If you went to buy a car and you weren't paying for it, would you care what it cost? If we cared what procedures and tests cost, we might at least ask!

    Go look at cosmetic surgery, where the consumer always pays themselves, and see how reasonable it is compared to other surgery.

    There are so many things fundamentally wrong with Obamacare, besides being unConstitutional, that we can't even begin to discuss it. You want government out of your uterus but you've got no problem with involving them in every aspect of your medical care and even if you get to live...unreal!
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/12 03:07:46
    luvguins
    I want corrupt health insurance companies to do what is right, and the GOP bribed by them will let them continue to burn us.
    If cosmetic surgery is done in the hospital it is additionally as expensive. Hospitals and doctors inflate their charges in order to get 1/3 back from insurance, but then dun the uninsured for the entire inflated bill. 66% of bankruptcies now are due to medical bills. What are you whining about as your insurance isn't going to change? Premiums and co-pays have been going up for years before the ACA was passed, and will continue if the ACA is repealed. Inflated health care costs need to be curbed, as ours are higher than any other country.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/12 03:15:55 (edited)
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    My insurance has already gone up, what are you talking about? Do you really believe you can mandate additional coverages and that money just comes out of the sky? We spend more money because we get more. Canada can keep it's costs down because they use our innovation and technology for free.

    Who will come up with the new drugs and cures when our private industries are gone?

    Next, your statistic about medical bankruptcies is just plain wrong. Funny, Canada has as many medical bankruptcies as the US but they have universal healthcare.

    http://american.com/archive/2...
  • luvguins Gracie ... 2012/06/12 04:08:18
    luvguins
    The American Enterprise Institute is a neoconservative think tank. Two many other studies from the AMA and other sites listed the medical bankruptcies from 54-62% in 2011. Canada"s costs are cheaper because doctors and hospitals don't get paid as much, and litigation is less. Plus they negotiate with big Pharma for drug pricing, and identicle brand drugs are 50-60% cheaper there.

    If health insurance gets 30 million more customers they will make off like bandits evening following some fair rules.

    Yes, premiums will go up regardless of the decision, and the companies just have an excuse now, but many companies are also asking their employees to pay more of the coverage too.
  • Gracie ... luvguins 2012/06/12 14:23:23
    Gracie - Proud Conservative
    You show me a valid source then, because it's not true. And I've seen over and over that Canada has as many medical bankruptcies which flies in the face of your assumptions.

    Canada doesn't have as much medical equipment, some counties in Florida have more MRI machines than all of a province in Canada. Natasha Richardson died because they didn't have a CT Scan and then didn't have a medical helicopter.

    Competition is critical to everything, including medical. Litigation has definitely driven up the cost of medical in America. We practice cover your ass medicine with people who don't care how much things cost. That by itself is a prescription for rising costs.

    If you bump your head and they don't do a CT scan and something happens, you're a freaking millionaire. They should say, this can happen, this is how much this costs and if it was coming directly out of your pocket you'd evaluate how badly you thought you bumped your head or would wait and see if you had any symptoms. But, since you're not paying for it...why the hell not, it's prudent right?

    My ex-husband is an ER physician and I worked in one for six years and I assure you that along with people clogging up the ER's that don't belong there, again because it doesn't matter to them economically, drive up costs to ...

    You show me a valid source then, because it's not true. And I've seen over and over that Canada has as many medical bankruptcies which flies in the face of your assumptions.

    Canada doesn't have as much medical equipment, some counties in Florida have more MRI machines than all of a province in Canada. Natasha Richardson died because they didn't have a CT Scan and then didn't have a medical helicopter.

    Competition is critical to everything, including medical. Litigation has definitely driven up the cost of medical in America. We practice cover your ass medicine with people who don't care how much things cost. That by itself is a prescription for rising costs.

    If you bump your head and they don't do a CT scan and something happens, you're a freaking millionaire. They should say, this can happen, this is how much this costs and if it was coming directly out of your pocket you'd evaluate how badly you thought you bumped your head or would wait and see if you had any symptoms. But, since you're not paying for it...why the hell not, it's prudent right?

    My ex-husband is an ER physician and I worked in one for six years and I assure you that along with people clogging up the ER's that don't belong there, again because it doesn't matter to them economically, drive up costs to everyone.

    Your Obamacare isn't even about healthcare, it's as much about building a structure of administrative control than anything. Control my health and you OWN ME.
    (more)
  • 4570GOVT Gracie ... 2012/06/10 11:56:06
    4570GOVT
    +1
    BINGO ! You Got It !
  • TheTailor luvguins 2012/06/10 04:10:11
    TheTailor
    +1
    So, Citizens United allows everyone to promote their candidate with as much money as they want, the playing field is leveled, and that's no good?
  • luvguins TheTailor 2012/06/10 04:26:09
    luvguins
    +2
    It is obscene to waste that much money on elections, now billions, IMO, and with no disclosure donations could come from foreign countries. Also anyone that gives millions wants something in return that may not be in the interest of we the people.
  • TheTailor luvguins 2012/06/10 04:33:49
    TheTailor
    +1
    China gave loads of money to Clinton, did you bitch about that? When unions could offset the balance with huge contributions, was that okay?
  • luvguins TheTailor 2012/06/10 04:49:15
    luvguins
    +2
    Money needs to be removed from politics completely and elections public funded only. Clinton never got political contributions from China. That would be illegal. You can cool your jets because the billionaires are bankrolling Romney and are ahead of the Obama campaign in money given.
  • TheTailor luvguins 2012/06/10 19:22:26
  • luvguins TheTailor 2012/06/10 23:41:06
    luvguins
    The unions have not been negated. If they ever are, think no minimum wage, longer hours, and no leave.

    The right has more corporatist billionaires than the left ready to run the country with the GOP if they can get puppet Romney installed.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/20 08:02:46

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals