Revisting a SCOTUS Job Requirement

[sirs]

"When we say maybe does she or does she not understand the plight of ordinary people, is that even important?  Isn't the job of a Supreme Court justice to understand the Constitution only and interpret it?"

Matt Lauer to Joe Biden

-------------------------------------------

Anyone wish to point out, anywehre in the Constitution, anything other than that as Job1 of a sitting Supreme Court Justice

[BT]

Anyone wish to point out, anywehre in the Constitution, anything other than that as Job1 of a sitting Supreme Court Justice

What the constitution says:

Article III
Section 1.

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
Section 2.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Period.

[sirs]

Yep, no where do I see some mandatory call for understanding the plight of ordinary people.  (whatever that's supposed to mean.  Perhaps we can get a ruling on that phrase.  See if it passes Constitutional muster)

Thanks Bt

[BT]

Nowhere does it limit how a justice comes to their interpretation, either.

[sirs]

Interpretation is interpretation.  It's like interpreting spanish to english.  The law is the law.  It's supposed to be blind, and has prescious little to do with the "plight of ordinary people"

[BT]

Justice is supposed to be blind, lawmaking rarely is. Look at civil rights legislation.

[sirs]

Civil Rights legislation was initally intended and formed to be colorblind....a treating everyone as equal....and initiated in the Legislature.  It's been subsequent mutations and "re-interpreting" of the constitution that's been pushing reverse discriminatory policy

And SCOTUS is not about "law making".  At least it's not supposed to be.  It's about enterpreting existing law

Period

[BT]

And SCOTUS is not about "law making".

it's decisions certainly have an affect on lawmaking.

[sirs]

Of course.  That's never been in question.  It's not anywhere in their job requirement however

[BT]

It's not anywhere in their job requirement however

Sure it is.

Was it not in Scotus purview to determine whether seperate but equal was constitutional?

Were they not to decide where the line in the sand should be concerning gun ownership?

[Plane]

  At what point did the SCOTUS become the agency that determined the meaning of the constitution?

   Why not the Congress or the Executive?

   Wasn't this a coup by justice Marshall?

[BT]

Marshall was a piece of work, that's for sure.

He took a nothing job and elevated it to the status of cabinet level officer, perhaps higher.