Does the SCOTUS make laws?

[LeBuick]

I have always thought the SCOTUS was there to interpret and administer the constitution and laws of this country. Since when are they able to "make far-reaching change" to a law or something that is in the constitution?

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11419211?source=most_viewed

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court served notice Friday that it may make a far-reaching change in civil rights law in 2009 and knock down a pair of long-standing rules that give special protection to minorities in the workplace and the voting booth.

 

[4His_glory]

The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench for quite some time now. You are right concerning their responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. Sadly that original practice was abandoned some time ago.

 

[LeBuick]

The Supreme Court has been legislating from the bench for quite some time now. You are right concerning their responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. Sadly that original practice was abandoned some time ago.

But in the past they masked their bench legislating behind previous court rulings. Now they are just out right legislating from the bench. Making and changing the law and constitution.

 

[Salty]

From the Link:

"One provision in the law requires many states, cities and other districts in much of the South to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge in Washington before they change their election rules. "

This sounds like discrimination to me!!!
Whatever applies to the South should apply to all States or Commonwealths.

 

[LeBuick]

From the Link:
"
One provision in the law requires many states, cities and other districts in much of the South to obtain advance approval from the Justice Department or a federal judge in Washington before they change their election rules. "

This sounds like discrimination to me!!!
Whatever applies to the South should apply to all States or Commonwealths.

I agree, if Congress has it apply to one state it should apply to all 50 plus territories. Now here is the good part, 3 years ago Congress extended those sections for another 25 years. Now how does the SCOTUS go and undue that?

This provision, Section 5 of the law, was reauthorized by Congress just three years ago, and it was given a 25-year extension. But many Southern officials have chafed at the provision, saying it is outdated and unfair.

To me it's the same as proposition 8 in CA. In a democracy, when the majority of the people vote it in then it's constitutional and no court should be able to undue it or declare it void.

 

[billwald]

SCOTUS makes laws in exactly the same way that Baptists make laws - by interpreting text.

 

[rbell]

SCOTUS makes laws in exactly the same way that Baptists make laws - by interpreting text.

Those two aren't the same thing, and Baptists don't make laws.

 

[billwald]

Baptists made a law/interpretation in clear violation of the plain words of the text that Jesus did not make (real) wine at Cana.

 

[rbell]

Baptists made a law/interpretation in clear violation of the plain words of the text that Jesus did not make (real) wine at Cana.

1. Law and interpretation are two different things.
2. There is no such thing as a "Baptist law."
3. If you're referring to prohibition, it wasn't like there were only Baptists in charge.
4. Yet again, you've posted off-topic. This has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

 

[billwald]

>1. Law and interpretation are two different things.

No example of SCOTUS "making laws" has been given. SCOTUS interprets new cases by using the Constitution, existing legislation, and case law.

Over the last 50 years I have associated with several local Baptist Churches and denominations. Every one of them has had a rule, call it what you like, against drinking alcohol and every one of them clearly misinterprets the historical event of Jesus turning water into wine at Cana. This is NOT off topic because anyone who objects to the operation of SCOTUS and then operates in the exact same way in his local congregation is two faced and double minded, criticizing others while doing the same thing.