<p>yeah, many people do feel that abortion is "murder" and it shouldn't be a legal right. It upsets me when people are pro-life, but then vehemently sponsor the death penalty. I think the death penalty should only be used sparingly on EXTREME cases (aka rapist, 15 murders, etc.). But what I find so interesting about our legal system is that the judges sitting on the supreme court bench can dictate our "personal human rights". Even though the constitution clearly states we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are we not tied down by the bounds, the judges truly interpret this ancient document and our laws and translate them as they wish.</p>
<p>On a heavier note, if abortion became illegal (I agree, probably not), people would just run to Mexico and get cut rate abortions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Even though the constitution clearly states we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are we not tied down by the bounds, the judges truly interpret this ancient document and our laws and translate them as they wish.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>The Supreme Court is bound by the requirement for legitimacy. It only has power insomuch as people accept it as a legitimate body, and thus must be exceedingly careful in how radical its decisions are. Its rulings are hardly all-powerful diktats.</p>
<p>lol.....yeah...i clicked this 5th part of the thread...and was shocked...i mean...this is the 760-800 thread isn't it? and then there's abortions?</p>
<p>On a heavier note, if abortion became illegal (I agree, probably not), people would just run to Mexico and get cut rate abortions.</p>
<p>Or just have backyard abortions like they get in Africa because there are no clinics because we cut off funding b/c they provide abortion counseling b/c of Mexico City policy b/c Bush is an a** and wanted the money for Iraq.</p>
<p>Browns - "mock others because they aren't as smart as you."</p>
<p>aren't you mocking the people here also? let him who is without sin throw the first stone. </p>
<p>i do think the religion critique is uncalled for, though.</p>
<p>and to this post "The Supreme Court is bound by the requirement for legitimacy. It only has power insomuch as people accept it as a legitimate body, and thus must be exceedingly careful in how radical its decisions are. Its rulings are hardly all-powerful diktats." </p>
<p>"John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"</p>
<p>Or, for a more recent example, one only has to look at the Supreme Court's impotence in enforcing Southern integration. That required the intervention of more powerful political forces.</p>
<p>*** how did this thread get here. anyway to answer the OP's question: i got into princeton with a 740 on writing on my second take (690 on the first take). although my other scores were 1550/800/800.</p>
<p>i think you took my post the wrong way. i don't mean to say the SC is all powerful; we have system of checks and balances for specific reasons. what i referenced, however was the remark that,"The Supreme Court is bound by the requirement for legitimacy. It only has power insomuch as people accept it as a legitimate body, and thus must be exceedingly careful in how radical its decisions are."</p>
<p>and yet it still holds power after extremely radical decisions like Roe v. Wade and what was then radical Brown v. Board. Sure, its bound by legitimacy. And it has a requirement - especially the justices - to decide fairly and thus step beyond party lines. And yet, at the point that Cheny was duck hunting with Scalia right before his trial for Halliburton....suggests much politics in what is supposed to be a sanctified area free of party politics and unbiased in its decisions.</p>
<p>so its not necessarily how radical the decisions are; it's who the SC offends/goes against in their decision.</p>
<p>plus the John Marshall decision isn't an example of SC being radical so people didn't accept it; it was example of SC going against Jackson's agenda....and so...it wasn't necessarily the 'people' who rejected it but Jackson.</p>
<p>
[quote]
what is supposed to be a sanctified area free of party politics and unbiased in its decisions.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Now that's idealistic. ;)</p>
<p>But, in any case, I was talking more about specific decisions (that if they went too far out of line people would simply ignore them). Overall, the court would have to start being very consistently radical for the public to lose faith in it as an institution.</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>
[quote]
so its not necessarily how radical the decisions are; it's who the SC offends/goes against in their decision.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Generally very radical decisions are going to be opposed by a large swath of entrenched interests, and often the general populace as well.</p>
<p>
[quote]
it was example of SC going against Jackson's agenda....and so...it wasn't necessarily the 'people' who rejected it but Jackson.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I was under the impression that the Supreme Court's ruling went ignored, and Jackson's quote was representative of that defiant spirit characterizing the Southern states.</p>
<p>of course it's idealistic. and that's why you saying that it is completely and effectively "bound by the requirement for legitimacy" is absurd. humans are prone to error; humans have biases; humans will violate this 'requirement for legitimacy' that is also ambigious and poorly defined. american ignorance, corruption - money and affluence, essentially - twist the ideal of the court system and twist the checks on it in the process.</p>
<p>but on that original post...yes, they would have to be v. radical to do stuff that can majorly intrude on our rights. but then again, propaganda goes a long way, and such things have happened before that the people have entirely failed to stop. Totalitarian governments in general exemplify this; and the Patriot Act is definitely a step in that direction that the general public has ignored towards a violation of individual rights in the name of 'national security'.</p>
<p>"Generally very radical decisions are going to be opposed by a large swath of entrenched interests, and often the general populace as well." you have to look at the rate they are being incorporated, what they are being masqueraded as, and the media emphasis, as well as - well, what is the definition of 'radical'? I'd argue PA is radical, and yet...how many people know about it? Of course, if SC rules all Chinese people are to be killed, that's blatant and not going to happen; but if they rule that due process (essentially minority's rights; as in imprisoning people of Middle Eastern descent simply because of their heritage - Jap. internment and even after 9/11) can be compromised in the name of national security...well, that happened and there wasn't that much public outcry until much later, was there? It was enforced - Japs were interned...and only very recently have they gotten any compensation - in terms of apology or monetary - not like you can put a monetary value on years of human life.</p>
<p>"I was under the impression that the Supreme Court's ruling went ignored, and Jackson's quote was representative of that defiant spirit characterizing the Southern states."</p>
<p>Note the emphasis on Southern. There was a select group of people who would profit from Indian displacement. I'd argue others could care less (esp. if not in their state). Once again, it did not provoke a unified, national outcry. On the contrary...it was very sectional.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the Patriot Act is definitely a step in that direction that the general public has ignored towards a violation of individual rights in the name of 'national security'.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How, pray tell, is the Patriot Act so extreme?</p>
<p>On your other point: You're right, of course. Very often people will accept such rulings. However, I was originally referring to the statement that SCOTUS "can dictate our 'personal human rights'" at its whim, which would be such a radical move that it would definitely cause a legitimacy crisis.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but if they rule that due process (essentially minority's rights; as in imprisoning people of Middle Eastern descent simply because of their heritage - Jap. internment and even after 9/11) can be compromised in the name of national security...well, that happened and there wasn't that much public outcry until much later, was there?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>At the time, Korematsu wasn't such a constitutional stretch. There had been much more of a willingness to accept such government action, especially with the threat Japan represented. Which is to say, that wasn't an extremely radical decision.</p>
<p>
[quote]
There was a select group of people who would profit from Indian displacement. I'd argue others could care less (esp. if not in their state). Once again, it did not provoke a unified, national outcry. On the contrary...it was very sectional.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps I improperly phrased my original observation by using the word people. A more exact phraseology would be "involved parties", which the South definitely was.</p>
<p>How, pray tell, is the Patriot Act so extreme?</p>
<p>Govt. can tap into our modes of communication, in particular, phone lines, without any warrent, jurisdiction, whatsoever. Is this not an invasion of our right to privacy? 4th Admendment, I believe. Govt. can't search our purses (private belongings) without a warrant; why can they listen to our private conversations without one?</p>
<p>"can dictate our 'personal human rights'" - is that not a personal human right? to live in your own house, to communicate freely? to not be imprisoned without due process of law? i don't see how it doesn't apply.</p>
<p>You know, I haven't really investigated the Patriot Act, but I've heard both that warrantless searches are permissible and that they aren't. Could you clear this up once and for all by citing where it says they are (or a site that shows this)? I'm honestly interested.</p>
<p>The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, hands down. But we cant speak against it, well, because then we wouldnt be patriotic Americans. We're either for us, or for the terrorists? I beg to differ.</p>
<p>At the time, Korematsu wasn't such a constitutional stretch. There had been much more of a willingness to accept such government action, especially with the threat Japan represented. Which is to say, that wasn't an extremely radical decision.</p>
<p>the whole "it wasn't so radical for the time period" is exemplary of what I'm talking about. people were eased into the idea, and lost their rights in the process. this just means that propaganda about national safety and japs being spies was so effective that the stripping of rights from japanese in general and without due process of law or real reason went largely ignored or accepted as normal. we are not talking about relative radical; we are talking about radical at the point that it robs people of their unalienable human rights. Rights were definitely lost in this situation; and this violation of their rights was condoned by the court - this is a radical decision at the point that, as you point out yourself, it takes away individual personal freedoms. and what about now? we regard jap. internment with horror and say its radical, but we do it ourselves - and did it after 9/11 with hundreds of ME descent. even though it was relatively radical to the public - as can be empirically seen in jap internment - it was still accepted - or ignored.</p>
<p>The Patriot Act is unconstitutional, hands down. But we cant speak against it, well, because then we wouldnt be patriotic Americans. We're either for us, or for the terrorists? I beg to differ.</p>
<p>LOL. Yes. Star Wars III anyone? "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy" was reminiscent of Bush's "If you're not with us, you are the terrorists."</p>
<p>Perhaps I improperly phrased my original observation by using the word people. A more exact phraseology would be "involved parties", which the South definitely was.</p>
<p>trying to define me out of the discussion will not work. in debate, this is the 'moving target' technique. if you do not lay that out specifically in the beginning, you have already lost the right to lay out further specifications randomly within the discussion.</p>
<p>Even if the government doesn't itself keep CAPPS-II records, it could get access to CRS archives whenever it likes: under the Patriot Act, travel records can be requisitioned with a "national security letter", without a warrant or subpoena or judicial review, and the recipient of such a letter can be forbidden to reveal that information has been given to the government. Denials by airlines, CRS's, or other travel companies that they have furnished passenger records to the government cannot be taken at face value, since under Patriot Act those denials could be government-ordered lies.</p>
<p>Under the act, federal investigators can obtain individuals' library, financial, health and education records from cities while barring municipal workers from letting anyone know authorities have seized the documents. Officials can also monitor the activities of people who have not been identified as suspects and search a home or office without prior notice.</p>
<p>The law dramatically expands the ability of states and the Federal Government to conduct surveillance of American citizens. The Government can monitor an individual's web surfing records, use roving wiretaps to monitor phone calls made by individuals "proximate" to the primary person being tapped, access Internet Service Provider records, and monitor the private records of people involved in legitimate protests.</p>
<p>PATRIOT is not limited to terrorism. The Government can add samples to DNA databases for individuals convicted of "any crime of violence." Government spying on suspected computer trespassers (not just terrorist suspects) requires no court order. Wiretaps are now allowed for any suspected violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, offering possibilities for Government spying on any computer user.</p>
<p>PATRIOT authorizes the use of "sneak and peek" search warrants in connection with any federal crime, including misdemeanors. A "sneak and peek" warrant authorizes law enforcement officers to enter private premises without the occupant's permission or knowledge and without informing the occupant that such a search was conducted.</p>