Did the US Supreme Court just ban climate change?

[giblets]

If 38 states agreed on something we'd already have a court that reflects that. The other branches have no real input on domestic policy aside from appointing new judges.

[giblets]

Also, "will of the people", my ass. Half of the US population lives in nine states.

[Berzerker]

a majority supports abortion rights

[EPW]

Also, "will of the people", my ass. Half of the US population lives in nine states.

To be fair, the Constitution is an anti-democratic document.

[PLATO]

To be fair, the Constitution is an anti-democratic document.

I guess that depends on what you mean by Democracy. The Constitution was designed for the individual States to control a great deal of the power in this country. The theory behind this, I believe, was to keep the power as close to the people as possible. I can pretty much get time with a State Congressman with little effort...getting time with a U.S. Congressman is a completely different story. Which is more an expression of Democracy? If you believe in the U.S. as one homogeneous country or a collection of 50 individual States defines if the Constitution is anti-democratic or extremely democratic.

As stated above, over half the population lives in 9 States...what about the other half that live in the other 41? Should people from a limited geographic area be able to impose their will on the vast majority of the area of the country? The point is to allow people from different areas and different cultures (and their are definitely different cultures in the U.S.) to live as they choose. The Constitution is supposed to ensure this.

I think we sometimes get lost in the idea of looking at the U.S. as a whole...it really isn't. It is a sum of 50 different parts.

[giblets]

People in the suburbs of Texas can impose their will on Austin and Dallas, people in Chicago impose their will on rural Illinois, but heaven forbid anyone imposes their will across state lines.

[PLATO]

People in the suburbs of Texas can impose their will on Austin and Dallas, people in Chicago impose their will on rural Illinois, but heaven forbid anyone imposes their will across state lines.

A line has to be drawn somewhere. Glad you understand.

[Berzerker]

why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?

[PLATO]

why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?

Because your choice is anarchy or oppression? Or just maybe....the closer the government is to the people, the more responsive to their will it will be?

[giblets]

Political machines, jim crow laws... local governments don't have a fantastic track record.

[PLATO]

Political machines, jim crow laws... local governments don't have a fantastic track record.

The Federal Government takes precedence over state law where the Constitution grants the Federal Government the power to do so. The Bill of Rights was a de facto example that the Framers of the Constitution and the subsequent Federal Government knew that The Federal Government would have to step in to guarantee the basic rights of the people. There IS a process to limit how the states govern their people. For some reason it has become an almost taboo thing to amend the Constitution. I don't think that was the idea. It has been called a "living" document, but isn't life about growth? The Constitution needs to grow and adapt to the changing ideals of the people...it was designed to do so. It was never designed for the Courts to do this without the input of the people and the states. It is still true that the people have the power in the US...it just seems to be a forgotten thing. Far easier to rely on unelected justices than to actually practice democracy I guess. Maybe that will be the good to come from this court...reactivating the people's will to control the country they live in?