Anabaptism and the 1st Amendment

[ken_sylvania]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.
No more.

Today, all court rulings are subject to appeals, rulings often become just the beginning of legal battles.
Law schools, the Bar Asoociation, rejoice! Employment security. Money in the bank.

Ordinary people can, at least, hope to recognize patterns. Jesus does not lead to futile paths.

You have got to be kidding, right?

i just noticed this. i don’t understand your question.

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.

Controversy over SCOTUS decisions and working to overturn them is about as old as the Court itself.

Do you think it would be best for the nation to accept SCOTUS decisions as the final word on the matter, accept it, and move on?

[Ken]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.
No more.

Today, all court rulings are subject to appeals, rulings often become just the beginning of legal battles.
Law schools, the Bar Asoociation, rejoice! Employment security. Money in the bank.

Ordinary people can, at least, hope to recognize patterns. Jesus does not lead to futile paths.

I think you mischaracterize how things were in the past.

1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford (return of escaped slaves in free states)
1896 Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal doctrine)
1905 Lochner v. New York (labor rights)
1927 Buck v. Bell (involuntary commitment and forced sterilization)
1931 Near v. Minnesota (obscenity laws)
1954 Brown v. Board of Education (segregated schools)
1963 Gideon v. Wainright (right to counsel)
1966 Miranda v. Arizona (right to silence and coerced confessions)
1970 Roe v. Wade (abortion)

Were all hugely controversial and subject to endless appeal, foot-dragging, and legal battles, some of which continue today. That isn't anything new.

Yes, there has always been more litigation, but culturally, more people tended to accept the SCOTUS rulings and decided. Today, everyone sees that it is just a liberal or conservative judge away from getting their way and overturning the decision. The SCOTUS has become quite political.

Recently, there has been several rulings that has validating the individual and corporate right of the 1st amendment. The government has encroached on all areas of it, and they have been now pushed back. Without the 1st Amendment, this would not have happened and we would have seen more overreach by the government.

Again, the purpose of the first 10 amendments was to limit government, not the individual.

You really think so? Research Brown v. Board of Education, which was passed nearly 70 years ago, and tell us about how communities in both the North and the South culturally accepted the court's ruling on school desegregation, went along willingly, and did not view it as political. In 1957 President Eisenhower actually had to send in the 101st Airborne to enforce the court's ruling in Little Rock Arkansas. When was the last time a recent president had to send in paratroopers to enforce a Supreme Court decision?

Just like the first 10 Amendments, Brown v. Board of Education was also about limiting the power of the government over the individual. In this case to prohibit government-enforced discrimination against Black citizens. The ruling only applied to public (i.e. government) schools not private schools.

[Bootstrap]

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.

Controversy over SCOTUS decisions and working to overturn them is about as old as the Court itself.

I agree. You can see a progression of Supreme Court cases on just about any important topic.

Do you think it would be best for the nation to accept SCOTUS decisions as the final word on the matter, accept it, and move on?

In general, I do think it would be good if the Supreme Court returned to a stronger belief in Stare Decisis.

[temporal1]

You have got to be kidding, right?

i just noticed this. i don’t understand your question.

USSC rulings used to generally represent “the end” to controversy. The court would rule, matters were generally accepted as closed.

Controversy over SCOTUS decisions and working to overturn them is about as old as the Court itself.
Do you think it would be best for the nation to accept SCOTUS decisions as the final word on the matter, accept it, and move on?

No, and this is not what i said. It’s not what scriptures say, in full, either.

i was speaking in generalizations, and, scriptures say more. But, in all matters, Jesus does not lead to fultility.
in my mind, nothing controversial.

Robert seemed to understand my general intent.
even Ken described the cheerleader case as trivial. with acknowledgement that human courts routinely expand on the trivial in following cases. “legal precedent” is the “brass ring” for political activists.

i would say many trivial or minor cases are now deliberately brought - for deliberate exploitation.

Jesus does not do that.

[Robert]

You really think so?

Yes. As a general statement. There has always been push back in all ways, but the core of the culture was not so politically polarized and hostile to SCOTUS rulings.

I am not saying they were always right. On the contrary. I think the SCOTUS gets lots wrong. It is a branch of the government who is always searching for more power. It is the only governor on the powers of the government but it is still part of the government. Lesser of the evils.

[Ken]

even Ken described the cheerleader case as trivial. with acknowledgement that human courts routinely expand on the trivial in following cases. “legal precedent” is the “brass ring” for political activists.

i would say many trivial or minor cases are now deliberately brought - for deliberate exploitation.

Jesus does not do that.

What I meant by "trivial" is that while the facts of many cases often seem trivial. For example, cheerleaders misbehaving on snapchat, or wedding cake bakers refusing to write words on a wedding cake. The underling rights or issues involved are not trivial, such determining the appropriate limits on government power, or balancing religious freedom against equal rights and protections against discrimination.

I don't think the Supreme Court picks cases because they are trivial and then seeks to inappropriately expand those rulings into unrelated areas of law in some kind of power grab. The Supreme Court gets tens of thousands of appeals ever year and can only hear a very tiny fraction of them. I think they pick cases because they address important unsettled areas of law that need settling, even if the facts of the case in question seem trivial or unimportant on their own.

The easy questions never make it up to the Supreme Court. They are easily settled in the lower courts. It is only the questions and cases that are not so easy that make it all the way to the top.

[Ken]

You really think so?

Yes. As a general statement. There has always been push back in all ways, but the core of the culture was not so politically polarized and hostile to SCOTUS rulings.

I am not saying they were always right. On the contrary. I think the SCOTUS gets lots wrong. It is a branch of the government who is always searching for more power. It is the only governor on the powers of the government but it is still part of the government. Lesser of the evils.

What do you see examples of modern hostility to SCOTUS rulings? I mean Roe v. Wade is the obvious one. There has been violent opposition to that ruling for the past 50 years. But what are some other examples of modern polarized hostility to SCOTUS rulings? I'm just curious what you are actually thinking about. What other recent SCOTUS rulings do you think are not being accepted by a polarized public?

[Robert]

What do you see examples of modern hostility to SCOTUS rulings?

[Ken]

What am I even looking at with these pictures and what SCOTUS ruling are they protesting?

[Robert]

I don't have the mental energy to respond tonight. Will be working all day tomorrow, so it will be a few days. Not sure if it matters what they were protesting, they seem to have little respect for the Court.