Why wont the supreme court listen?

[Cinderella]

why wont the supreme court hear any cases of the gov stepping all over our civil liberties?? I got into a heated discussion with my local radio host about this. His argument is that we cry about the gov taking our civil liberties away yet we dont take it to the supremem court to have them rule....so my question is why hasnt any of these instances been brought to the supreme court??

and the bastard said ron paul would not get eleceted in 2012 unless he loosened up on some of his crazy ideas! to which i responded that DOCTOR Ron Paul takes his orders from the constitution!

[dannno]

Hah, nice response..


I'm not sure why the SCOTUS won't hear the cases, but I'd imagine people have tried. It could be that they don't have 'standing' supposedly because their rights hadn't been violated yet. Well, Hitler setup and ran his whole regime legally based on legislation that he had passed slowly and quietly over many years, so I think it would be BS to state that a citizen whose rights can potentially legally be violated cannot protect themselves preemptively.

[Cinderella]

ahhh Danno I knew you would be one of the first replies...i wish I had been better prepared to answer that question but i wasnt expecting it...I had called to talk about our state holiday patriots day...then I drifted off into talking about how the gov work for the people and not the other way around etc and the gov continues to take our civil liberties...then he hit me with the question...a caller followed up by saying that the supreme court could only hear X amount of cases a year....

I want to call back tomorro and give him an answer

[erowe1]

why wont the supreme court hear any cases of the gov stepping all over our civil liberties?? I got into a heated discussion with my local radio host about this. His argument is that we cry about the gov taking our civil liberties away yet we dont take it to the supremem court to have them rule....so my question is why hasnt any of these instances been brought to the supreme court??

and the bastard said ron paul would not get eleceted in 2012 unless he loosened up on some of his crazy ideas! to which i responded that DOCTOR Ron Paul takes his orders from the constitution!

Like what civil liberties are you talking about? The do hear cases on things that concern people here. There was that Hamdi case and the Bourmadine (sp?) case. It happens from time to time.

[Cinderella]

like the patriot act, IRS, this healthcare crap, W.O.D, the FED etc etc etc

[Anti Federalist]

Many times going to the SCROTUS to enforce rights will just end up with you getting a black eye, assuming you have the hundreds of thousands of dollars it will cost and the years of time to spend to get a case before the SCROTUS.

The Kelo case, the DC gun rights case (a Pyrrhic victory at best) the hundreds of civil forfeiture and drug cases and police abuse cases that have come before the court have, more often than not, led to further increases of government power and encroachment of liberty, not less.

[tangent4ronpaul]

First Amendment:
http://www.anarchytv.com/speech/cases.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_first_amendment.html

Civil Rights:
http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/key-civil-rights-cases.html

Patriot act:
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0222/Supreme-Court-Does-part-of-Patriot-Act-violate-citizens-rights

Not the SC, but a federal judge rules a key part of the partiot act unconstitutional:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59626-2004Sep29.html

The FED:
http://www.save-a-patriot.org/files/view/frcourt.html
http://supreme.justia.com/us/268/449/
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aUpIaeiWKF2s

Google is your friend! :D

I'll let you search for the rest...

-t

[nobody's_hero]

Maybe because the president nominates SC Justices and the Senate confirms them, and we used to have Senators who were at the mercy of the states.

When they ratified the 17th Amendment, the unfortunate side effect (or did they do it on purpose? :() was that the states not only lost control of our U.S. Senators, but they also lost what little influence they had on supreme court nominations.

So, yeah. The president picks 'em. The Congress rubber-stamps 'em. And the Justices know what side their bread is buttered on. They aren't going to just up and challenge any laws coming from the former two, just for the hell of it.

[erowe1]

like the patriot act, IRS, this healthcare crap, W.O.D, the FED etc etc etc

Where did you get the idea that the Supreme Court never hears cases on those things?