Do you think it is right to test the US Supreme Court?
82513
since the constitution and the Bill of rights does not come right out, in black and white, and say certin things are legal or illigal, it is our job to make sure the courts have it right.  So I have no problem testing the supreme court.
1090487
It's shameful that we would need an amendment to remind the SCOTUS that the Forth Amendment means what the words say it means, the probable cause means probable cause and not reasonable suspicion and so on ... yet this seems to be the case.\n\nI'd definitely like an amendment that spells out the "Constitutional privacy" I learned about in High School Civics class. This Constitutional privacy was the other side of Constitutional obligation. The two of them together defined the limits of government power, something we today are in sore need of.\n\nObligation: If activity infringes your rights, then the government MUST act to protect your rights. If it refuses to do so, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government do its job.\n\nPrivacy: If your activity does NOT infringe on the rights of others, then the government MAY NOT interfere to curtail that activity. If it does, citizens can take the legislative and/or executive branches to court, where the judiciary can MAKE the government respect your right to privacy.\n\nNote on obligation: This does not mean that government can or should guarantee that you will never be robbed, only that government has an obligation to consider theft to be a crime and to take reasonable measures to prevent theft, to apprehend and punish theives.\n\nNote on privacy: There are cases where government can interfere in public activity, but must "butt out" where the activity is in private between consenting adults. Sexual behavior is a good example.\n\nNote on both: True, we have many laws that violate this principle. For instance, some say that "No beer sales on Sunday" violates this principle. That these laws have not (as yet) been successfully challenged and repealed does not negate the principle.
41619
During the proceedings themselves? That is not possible.  Only a higher court can over rule a court, and that's only if they agree to hear the case in the first place.  Many superior courts will turn cases back claiming juristiction issues, and the Supreme Court rejects cases almost routinely, as few cases rise to the level of a true challenge to current interpretations of the Constitution.
266606
are you asking if it was fair or correct ???
236009
I LOVE Marbury v. Madison.  Here's how it works.  The Supreme Court is the weakest branch of the federal government coming out of the writing of the Constitution.  They have one ace in the hole though, when someone wants to know what the Constitution means, they go to the supreme court.\n\nSo anyway, this case comes along, Marbury v. Madison.  The first bit of the opinion was the Supreme Court saying that this case has no standing because it was brought to us when it should have gone to another court first.  THEN they go on to say, pretty much, while we have you here the supreme court has the right to review laws (not in the Constitution) and declare them unconstitutional.  \n\nHow can you argue with that.  If you were gonna argue, you'd go where?  The Supreme Court.  They just GAVE themselves this incredible power that they don't actually have.  \n\nAhhh, good stuff!
334684
Yes. And if you doubt that answer, ask people the following questions:\n\n1. What 5 rights are guaranteed by the 1st amendment (Speech, religion, petition the government, assemble, and press).\n\n2. What does the 10th amendment say?\n\nI doubt most people could get one right, much less two.
783916
The constitution provides a legal foundation for our\nlaws and our cival discourse. Disputes and questions regarding\nall manner of civall and criminal conduct have a final\narbiture with the Supreme court and the federal and state courts.
57404
Yes. Privacy rights should be the subject of the next amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I recognize, of course, that several landmark cases have made privacy a "fundamental" right under the U.S. Supreme Court's interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, but I do not feel safe given the progressively more conservative orientation of the Court.  If and when Judge Alito joins the Court, silenced will be the voice of Justice O'Connor, an important voice of reason on the subject of privacy.  An amendment could explicitly enumerate what privacy rights are protected and inviolable.
757327
It would be a good idea to look up the 11th amendment to the US Constitution. I have and am completely without ideas as it is a hard one to capture in pictures. It gives citizens of any state the right to sue a state.
184490
Assuming you mean in the hinie (thanks Yahoo filter), the 2001 US Supreme Court case of Lawrence vs. Texas makes it your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to bugger somebody.  Though they couldn't point to the specific constitutional phrase...\n\nWonder what Jefferson and Madison, et al, would have thought about that?
662444
The other responses here are not entirely correct.  The appellate courts serve an entirely different purpose than a Supreme Court.  As a litigant, you have a RIGHT to have your appeal heard.  However, if you lose at the appeal stage, the Supreme Court is not required to hear your case.  You have no RIGHT to Supreme Court review.  In fact, roughly 95% of cases which seek review from the California Supreme Court, for instance, are denied review.\n\nAt the appellate level, the question is whether the trial court did something wrong and whether its error was significant enough to merit overturning the trial court's decision.  At the Supreme Court level, the issue is whether the appeals court acted in such a manner that is interesting enough, unique enough, or compelling enough to merit Supreeme Court review.  In a very real sense, the Supreme Court level is about law and policy making.
907594
Voting does not do any good if the U.S. Supreme Court won't allow the votes to be counted. If that's your point about Florida, 2000, then I agree.\n\nVoting doesn't do any good when the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't do it's job right in regards to interpretting the U.S. Constitution. A couple of times now the Supreme Dictators have proclaimed, "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code." That statement is absolutely false and completely hypocritical. Whenever those Justices come up with a different definition of "liberty" than any legislature has and which is not found in the U.S. Constitution, then there is no point in any of us voting.
952810
Your premise is wrong!  The U.S. Supreme Court has time and again showed that the U.S. Constitution is still alive and working.
318589
It is a test the government set up to make sure lawyers actually know law and aren't gonna screw up their clients afterwards with their ignorance. Therefore, you have to take it.
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
610040
No. They don't test it, just give me reason to really ponder and respond accordingly.
984235
You better believe it.  The framers were very wise to include these contingencies in the Constitution.\n\nYou get your chance on Tuesday :-)