Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Interesting Fox News Article on Landmark 1958 Supreme Court Decision

  1. #1
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,654

    Post Interesting Fox News Article on Landmark 1958 Supreme Court Decision

    In September 1958, sixty years ago next week, the United States Supreme Court finally earned its hard-fought reputation as a co-equal branch of the federal government, in a courtroom drama filled with urgency and uncertainty.

    For perhaps the first time, the high court put muscle behind its mandate, asserting in unequivocal terms that its interpretation of the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land," and ordering immediate state compliance.
    Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagreed with them.
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...-politics.html

    Interesting historical flashback from 60 years ago... in what was the beginning of the very liberal Warren court of the 1960s, the Supreme Court ruled that only its interpretation of the Constitution was valid, and that the states must bow down and submit to its authority if any state or local laws contradicted the high court's edicts.

    That original case was the impetus used to force the southern states to allow full-blown integration of black children into all public schools, and was the basis of many landmark Supreme Court decisions since.

    It's kind of ironic, because now (for the past 30 years) where the conservatives have held a razor-thin majority on the Supreme Court, and possibly moreso after Trump is done making appointments, they now get to "ram" their edicts down the throats of the states and the states have to accept it, which could be good news for gun rights.

    What's remarkable, as that Fox News article pointed out near the end, is how the public now seems to accept the Supreme Court's mandate to definitively decide the law. As Justice Breyer pointed out: "What was remarkable about it is that even though vast numbers of Americans thought it was wrong," and even though Breyer himself thought it wrongly decided, "people followed it. In other places, there would have been guns and bullets. The fact that no blood was shed after Bush v. Gore, is what makes America great."
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  2. #2
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,686
    I know this off your track here, But I find the left's insistence on adhering to stare decisis in a couple abortion cases, why don't they insist on it in other cases like slavery for example? They always have a double standard.

  3. #3
    Registered User LAGC's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    8,654
    Quote Originally Posted by 1 Patriot-of-many View Post
    I know this off your track here, But I find the left's insistence on adhering to stare decisis in a couple abortion cases, why don't they insist on it in other cases like slavery for example? They always have a double standard.
    Well, slavery didn't really end until the passage of the 14th Amendment, did it not?

    So the earlier Supreme Court only had the earlier amendments to work with, which tolerated slavery. It wasn't until the Constitution was updated that the Supreme Court revised its opinions in turn.

    But other than groundbreaking changes like constitutional amendments, yes, the SCOTUS does tend to like to follow precedent and honor earlier decisions.
    "That tyranny has all the vices both of democracy and oligarchy is evident. As of oligarchy so of tyranny, the end is wealth; (for by wealth only can the tyrant maintain either his guard or his luxury). Both mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of their arms." -- Aristotle, Book V, 350 B.C.E

  4. #4
    Team Guns Network Silver 04/2013 alismith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    44th "Free" State
    Posts
    10,749
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    Well, slavery didn't really end until the passage of the 14th Amendment, did it not?

    So the earlier Supreme Court only had the earlier amendments to work with, which tolerated slavery. It wasn't until the Constitution was updated that the Supreme Court revised its opinions in turn.

    But other than groundbreaking changes like constitutional amendments, yes, the SCOTUS does tend to like to follow precedent and honor earlier decisions.
    Officially, yes.

    Unofficially, no.

    Slavery still exits in the US. It's called Welfare. The Dims instituted it to keep blacks subservient to them and to the government.

    Prior to that, Southern Dimocrats founded the KKK to keep blacks in line. When that started to fall out of favor, they switched tactics and started the welfare system.

    As long a black people live off welfare and other forms of government assistance, they will always be slaves to somebody else. That's why the Dims are always going to fight people who try to help the black person become self-sufficient.
    Last edited by alismith; 09-10-2018 at 03:05 PM.
    "Valar morghulis; valar dohaeris."

    "Never say, "gun control" but instead say, "victim disarmament." - L Neil Smith

    Making good people helpless won't make bad people harmless.

    Freedom isn't free.

    "Attitude is the paintbrush that colors our world." TV Series, Haven.

  5. #5
    Guns Network Lifetime Member #2

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    6,686
    Quote Originally Posted by LAGC View Post
    Well, slavery didn't really end until the passage of the 14th Amendment, did it not?

    So the earlier Supreme Court only had the earlier amendments to work with, which tolerated slavery. It wasn't until the Constitution was updated that the Supreme Court revised its opinions in turn.

    But other than groundbreaking changes like constitutional amendments, yes, the SCOTUS does tend to like to follow precedent and honor earlier decisions.
    All 4 libs on the court undercut Mcdonald and Heller(individual right) every chance they can. Even after swearing it was settled law in front of their confirmation hearings. You do recall Obama's two picks right? Name one case since, Sotomayer and Kagan have upheld second amendment rights on the court? Precedent means absolutely nothing to them if it's affront to their ideology, in fact I'll go further The US Constitution means nothing to them as written either. So why should Constitutionals uphold ideologically driven snivel because it's recent precedent?
    Last edited by 1 Patriot-of-many; 09-10-2018 at 09:44 PM.

  6. #6
    Administrator Krupski's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    ┌П┐(◣_◢)┌П┐
    Posts
    14,577
    Quote Originally Posted by alismith View Post
    Officially, yes.

    Unofficially, no.

    Slavery still exits in the US. It's called Welfare. The Dims instituted it to keep blacks subservient to them and to the government.

    Prior to that, Southern Dimocrats founded the KKK to keep blacks in line. When that started to fall out of favor, they switched tactics and started the welfare system.

    As long a black people live off welfare and other forms of government assistance, they will always be slaves to somebody else. That's why the Dims are always going to fight people who try to help the black person become self-sufficient.


    The true evil of slavery was that it brought "them" here in the first place.
    Gentlemen may prefer Blondes, but Real Men prefer Redheads!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •