Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands June 17th, 2012 12:00am

Do you trust the U.S. Supreme Court to be politically impartial? (Before ACA ruling)

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

centexken Republic of Texas
06/25/12 11:05 pm

Until Obama gets another leftist on the court. This is why Obama must be defeated in November.

Doopy Remedial Americanism
06/22/12 11:36 pm

As individuals no, but as a unit, I think so. The issue is complicated by the fact that justices occupy not only a point on the liberal/conservative spectrum, but also the originalist/activist spectrum.


06/20/12 5:13 pm

It's as good as it can be within the confines or our form of government.

Lutang
06/19/12 8:12 am

I used to. Not these days.

affd
06/19/12 7:45 am

If cattle was his product then yes that would apply. Again I never said I agreed with it but the SCOTUS isn't their to decide fairness. Which IMO it really isn't fair that the farmer can't grow extra wheat

affd
06/19/12 7:45 am

If cattle was his product then yes that would apply. Again I never said I agreed with it but the SCOTUS isn't their to decide fairness. Which IMO it really isn't fair that the farmer can't grow extra wheat

EarlyBird Portland
06/19/12 6:44 am

Kommswife- Yes I've noticed it! He does whatever he wants and no one is holding him accountable! What do we do? The man (whom I voted for) has become an egotistical monster!

optimist6 Fort Wayne, IN
06/18/12 9:10 pm

My mom's a dad and my dad's a mom. Don't ask.

Kommandant Indiana
06/18/12 8:24 pm

... That the fed wouldn't all a person to grow their own food for them self since they are no longer buying from anther. Thus that says the fed does not want a citizen to be independent, self sufficient and free!
No way that can be right. No way the founders intended that!!

Kommandant Indiana
06/18/12 8:21 pm

Let see if I got this right. Your saying the fed will
Not allow American farmers to grow their own good for their own cattle? And that is based on the theory that the farmer is affecting the economy by not buying from someone else? Then what stops that at cattle? That logic also would dictate ...

enuf4me Washington
06/18/12 6:31 pm

I should be able to, but I do not.

affd
06/18/12 4:37 pm

That's what the supreme court is for though, to check the central govt. it's not a matter of fairness, it's a matter of constitutionality.

jdengel
06/18/12 3:25 pm

And to me it's more about principle, should these decisions be made by a central government or the individual?

Central governments are easy to corrupt, 300 million individuals are not.

jdengel
06/18/12 3:23 pm

But this would be up to private entities to decide, not a central government. After all, I have more faith that a 4th generation farmer knows more about agriculture then a temporary politician.

jdengel
06/18/12 3:19 pm

Doubtful, the market would in all likelihood achieve an equilibrium due to supply frontier costs among other things. If everyone produces only wheat, barely prices will skyrocket or rye or X staple grain. It's unprofitable for a farmer to retool every year.

affd
06/18/12 3:07 pm

The amount of fluctuation could cause a massive problem. You're right, a farmer would be dumb to keep supplying wheat when there's no demand. So what happens when demand goes up and supply is down. The price skyrockets and you keep repeating the same issue

jdengel
06/18/12 2:34 pm

This whole case started because president Roosevelt capped production from farms in order to artificially drive up the price of food

jdengel
06/18/12 2:31 pm

If there is no demand the supply will diminish as well, but we are talking about one farmer.

However, even if every farmer did this, the price may plummet, it may not. A farmer would be foolish to continue planting wheat given there is little demand, but it is still that farmers choice.

jdengel
06/18/12 2:28 pm

He didn't sell any wheat, he was only growing wheat for his own cattle

affd
06/18/12 2:16 pm

Correct me if I'm wrong (you know more about this case than I do) but wheat was his product right? That's what he sold, and that's what was sold in that community of farms? If so then I can see their point of view. If there is no demand then what happens to the supply?

jdengel
06/18/12 1:58 pm

Yes, and only if it's a matter of interstate commerce, but one cannot say a lack of trade is actually trade, because like I said, if not engaging in trade is affecting trade, that farmer may be told he can't slaughter that cattle because then they won't eat wheat

affd
06/18/12 1:44 pm

Sorry I mean if the intrastate commerce began to or threatened in the future, interstate commerce; then the fed can step in

affd
06/18/12 1:31 pm

@jdengel but the state would have to defer to the fed

jdengel
06/18/12 1:25 pm

If that individual state wanted to regulate trade within its borders outside of federal government goading, it is free to do so, because if that individual dislikes it, he or she is free to move to a different state, but it's a little different to emigrate from the US entirely

jdengel
06/18/12 1:22 pm

You are part of the economy, but the commerce clause was only intended to solve trade disputes between states, other nations and Indian territories

affd
06/18/12 1:22 pm

I admitted to only reading the outcome just now lol

jdengel
06/18/12 1:21 pm

If every farmer in the nation did it, that's fine, it would bottom the price of wheat out and market would correct itself within a year. Meanwhile everyone in America would enjoy bread for $1.00 a loaf and I'm sure Africa would enjoy the excess

affd
06/18/12 1:17 pm

Now if he was growing a small garden, that would be different lol

jdengel
06/18/12 1:16 pm

I'm not looking down on you when I say this, but I bet you didn't know what Wickard V Filburn was before an hour ago or so

And I'm not saying this as an insult, because I bet 95% of americans have never heard of the case.

affd
06/18/12 1:16 pm

@jdengel being a farmer and making your source of income wheat, you are now a part of the economy. If you grow extra, you don't have to buy it at the local price, so your neighboring farmers lose a customer. Now imagine if 10 farmers did that.. 100... Etc.

jdengel
06/18/12 1:13 pm

If the government can tell you that you cannot grow wheat on your own land, for your own cattle, is there really anything that they can't tell you to do?

I seriously doubt the founders intended for a central government to have that sort of power, hence the 10th amendment

KommsWife Indiana
06/18/12 1:07 pm

Anyone notice Obamas recent streak of unconstitutionally bypassing congress and just dictating which laws will be enforced?

affd
06/18/12 1:05 pm

@jdengel I'll be honest I only read the decision. From what I understand they decided his extra wheat would effect commerce. If he did it, then others would follow. Tough decision to make really. Do they stop it now.. Or when it gets out of control

jdengel
06/18/12 12:51 pm

The commerce clause originally only gave the government the ability to regulate trade with other nations and interstate commerce

jdengel
06/18/12 12:49 pm

The commerce clause does not give the government the ability to tell an individual they cannot grow wheat on their own land, at least that's what it used to mean, until Hugo Black butchered the constitution.

Every court decision until Wickard V. Filburn said the government did not have this power.

affd
06/18/12 12:38 pm

Not saying I agree or disagree... But it is stated

affd
06/18/12 12:35 pm

@jdengel that was actually constitutional. Article 1 section 8

psycho44
06/18/12 12:02 pm

a little but if obama gets one more pick no way

dabrat East Coast
06/18/12 12:00 pm

I'd like to but can't trust that it doesn't happen.

KommsWife Indiana
06/18/12 11:38 am

I just hope they strike down Obama care. We should know Monday

jdengel
06/18/12 11:19 am

Wickard vs Filburn is the primary reason why our constitution is ignored and the government is out of control.

If that decision wasn't a biased opinion, I don't know what is.


06/18/12 9:05 am

This isn't the only time the court has been divided, FDR was really good at stacking the court. Timing is everything. Like Barry says elections have consequences.

opinoner homaha
06/18/12 8:08 am

The sc is messesed up man I Maclean who kills poor unborn innocent babies???????????????????????????

NYevo NY
06/18/12 7:18 am

They will be more impartial than the executive and legislative branches due to having less pressure associated with keeping their jobs, but hey, they're human. That said, they're the best we have against the tyranny of the majority

scottstots Georgia
06/18/12 7:07 am

Too many 5-4 decisions to be impartial. Roberts is going to have to find a way to gain consensus.