Jump to content
270soft Forum

Supreme Court Jurisprudence Poll


Supreme Court Jurisprudence  

25 members have voted

  1. 1. Bill of Rights

    • Freedom of Speech - Traditionalist/Sedition Act (1798): The government may, in times of war or peace, limit speech critical of it or deemed scurrilous towards the country.
      0
    • Freedom of Speech - Conservative/Sedition Act (1918): The government may, in times of war, limit speech critical of the government.
    • Freedom of Speech - Moderate/Schenck (1919): Advocacy of Crime or Violence or speech that poses a “clear and present danger” can be limited.
    • Freedom of Speech - Liberal/Brandenburg (1969): Only incitement of violence is a legitimate restriction on speech.
    • Freedom of Speech - Purist Libertarian: The government has no legitimate reason nor power to limit speech.
    • Separation of Church and State - Dogmatic: The dogma of my preferred religion supersedes the laws of the United States. Only good Christians (insert your preferred religion) may hold public office.
    • Separation of Church and State - Traditionalist: This country was founded on Judeo-Christian precepts and therefore the principles of Christian/Jewish law should be considered when making decisions.
    • Separation of Church and State - Conservative: This country was founded on Judeo-Christian precepts and therefore expressions of faith in the public sphere are entirely acceptable. Engel (1962) was wrongly decided; School Prayer and open display of objects such as the Ten Commandments and crosses on public property are permissible.
    • Separation of Church and State - Moderate/Engel (1962): School prayer is non-permissible but inanimate/non-interactive displays of faith such as faith objects on public property are permissible.
    • Separation of Church and State - Liberal/Lemon (1971): The Lemon Test, which holds that laws must have a secular purpose, neither advance nor inhibit religion, and do not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion, is the correct standard.
    • Separation of Church and State - Progressive: All mentions to faith on public property are impermissible and common references to God such as on coinage should be removed.
    • Separation of Church and State - Atheocratic: All mention of Faith in public spaces should be strictly prohibited and public servants must renounce public displays of faith upon entering office.
    • Religious Liberty - Purist Libertarian: Religious Liberty for all faiths supersedes all laws.
    • Religious Liberty - Dogmatic: Religious Liberty of my preferred religion supersedes all laws; the guiding legal code of the United States should be my religion’s canon.
      0
    • Religious Liberty - Libertarian/Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018): Business Owners may deny service to individuals based on religious objections. Government cannot coerce speech.
    • Religious Liberty - Conservative/Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014): Business owners may exempt themselves from certain regulations, such as a contraceptive coverage mandate, on the basis of religious objection.
    • Religious Liberty - Moderate/Yoder (1972): Religious adherents may opt out of certain public spaces. Religious Liberty outweighs the state's interest in certain public services such as education.
    • Religious Liberty - Liberal/Employment Division v. Smith (1990): A “neutral law of general applicability” that may incidentally restrict religious liberty is permissible.
    • Religious Liberty - Progressive: Religious Liberty doesn’t apply outside of the home or private places of worship and displays of faith in public spaces are therefore not protected.
    • Religious Liberty - Atheocratic: Religious Liberty does not apply to any case. The government may restrict worship in homes or private spaces of worship at will in the name of national interest.
      0
    • Freedom of Press -Traditionalist/Sedition Act of 1798: The government may restrict and review the press during times of war and peace in the name of national interest/security.
      0
    • Freedom of Press - Conservative/Espionage Act of 1917: The government may restrict and review the press during times of war.
    • Freedom of Press - Moderate/Sullivan (1964): In order for a press report to be libellous against a public official, there must be “actual malice”.
    • Freedom of Press - Liberal/Manning (2013): The government may prosecute leaks of classified materials.
    • Freedom of Press - Progressive/Libertarian/NYT (1971): Certain classified documents can be leaked under free press protections.
    • Freedom of Press - Purist: There are no legitimate restrictions on what can be published in the press.
    • Freedom of Association - Pure Exclusionist: Private businesses may deny service to any individual with whom they do not wish to associate.
    • Freedom of Association - Exclusionist: Private organizations such as clubs may deny membership as they see fit.
    • Freedom of Association - Soft Exclusionist/Dale (2000): Private organizations are able to choose their own members and expel members based on sexual orientation.
    • Freedom of Association - Soft Inclusionist/Hurley (1995): Private organizations organizing a public protest may exclude individuals who disagree with the message of said protest.
    • Freedom of Association - Inclusionist: Private organizations may only exclude members who would pose direct danger to others.
    • Freedom of Association - Pure Inclusionist: The freedom to associate does not grant any ability to exclude others.
    • Freedom of Assembly - Authoritarian: The government has wide powers to restrict and prohibit peaceful assemblies of citizens.
      0
    • Freedom of Assembly - Conservative: The government has the authority to break up a peaceful assembly if they have cause to believe violence is soon to follow.
    • Freedom of Assembly - Liberal: The government has authority to break up assemblies only when they become actively non-peaceful.
    • Freedom of Assembly - Anarchist: The government has no authority whatsoever to break up an assembly, peaceful or otherwise, of citizens. Riots are constitutionally protected.
    • Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Purist: The 2nd Amendment protects all arms, not just firearms. The people should have the right to be equally as armed as the United States Armed Forces.
    • Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Traditionalist: The 2nd Amendment protects all forms of firearms. The people may join together to create civilian militias.
    • Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Libertarian: The 2nd Amendment protects all forms of firearms.
    • Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Conservative/Heller (2008): The government cannot restrict ownership of a firearm related to self-defense, not membership in a militia. Exceptions for certain capacities of firearms may be made.
    • Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Moderate/Miller (1939): The government has the authority to regulate firearms that don’t have to do with membership in a militia. Broad power to regulate semi-automatic weapons.
    • Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Liberal/Cruikshank (1876): The 2nd amendment does not protect the individual right to keep and bear arms and only serves as a limit to the federal government which otherwise has broad regulatory power regarding firearms.
    • Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Progressive: The 2nd amendment is outdated and doesn’t apply beyond the muskets available at the time. It is, for all intents and purposes, a useless clause of the Constitution.
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizures - Traditionalist: Any search claimed by Police or the State in the name of national or community security is reasonable. Broad power to search and seize private property. The TSA has broad power.
      0
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizures - Conservative/Terry (1968): The Police should have broad authority when making traffic stops as well as private searches. While important, warrants are not as important as Reasonable Suspicion when searching or detaining individuals.
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizures - Moderate/Katz (1967): American citizens have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” and the state is bound to respect this in all instances where such a reasonable expectation can be made.
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizures - Liberal: Warrants are paramount in a reasonable search/seizure. No-knock warrants and domestic asset forfeiture are likely unconstitutional. Police authority is limited in traffic stops.
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizures - Progressive/Libertarian: The grounds on which a warrant can be issued are very scant. The Police should have to jump through hoops to attain them and should have very narrow authority during traffic stops. The TSA is unconstitutional.
    • Unreasonable Search and Seizures - Mapp (1961): I support the exclusionary rule.
    • Digital Privacy - Traditionalist: The 4th amendment cannot and does not apply to so-called “digital privacy rights”. The internet is a playground for bad actors and the state has broad regulatory authority.
      0
    • Digital Privacy - Conservative/PATRIOT Act (2001): National Security concerns trump digital privacy. The 4th amendment applies but not as stringently as it would with a physical search or seizure. The NSA has broad authority to act on behalf of national security.
    • Digital Privacy - Moderate/Riley (2014): Privacy is important but so too is national security. NSA metadata collection is permissible but individual data collection requires a warrant.
    • Digital Privacy - Liberal/Carpenter (2018): Digital Rights are important. They are a complete extension of the 4th amendment and must be protected as thoroughly. NSA metadata collection requires a warrant.
    • Digital Privacy - Progressive/Libertarian: Just as with physical personal effects, the government should have to jump through hoops to gain access to private data. The 4th amendment acts as a broad shield against government infringements on privacy.
    • Eminent Domain - Authoritarian/Kelo (2005): Government has broad authority to claim private property for “public purpose” and may define what that purpose is.
    • Eminent Domain - Moderate: Government is constrained to more restrictive “public use” when taking private property.
    • Eminent Domain - Libertarian: Eminent Domain is widely overused and must be reigned in. “Public Use” should be constrained to the most important of public tasks. Private Property should be respected in all possible instances.
    • Trial by Jury - Traditionalist/Korematsu (1944): The state has broad authority to suspend the right to trial in the name of national security and sequester groups determined to be threats to national security. Foreign combatants have no rights.
    • Trial by Jury - Conservative/Hamdi (2004): Individuals suspected of terrorism and held in black sites such as Guatanamo Bay are not protected under the 6th amendment. Foreign Terrorists should be treated as enemy combatants to be tried by military tribunals.
    • Trial by Jury - Moderate: In very specific cases, such as the case of national insurrection during the Civil War (1861), Habeas Corpus may be suspended in the name of national security.
    • Trial by Jury - Liberal/Hamdan (2006): Habeas Corpus may not be suspended for U.S. Citizens under any circumstance and foreign combatants may only be tried in tribunals which meet the standards of the Geneva Convention and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    • Trial by Jury - Progressive/Libertarian: All U.S. Citizens have the right to habeas corpus and trial by jury. So do all enemy combatants who are to be afforded full constitutional rights and protections.
    • Bail - Traditonalist: We need to expand the bail system and re-introduce debtor’s prisons to better carry out justice.
    • Bail - Conservative: Bail is an important piece of the criminal justice system which bonds criminals to the state to avoid flight risks.
    • Bail - Moderate: The Cash Bail system as we have it currently is largely effective.
    • Bail - Liberal: Cash Bail needs reform and should be changed to better serve underprivileged communities but it is not a constitutional violation.
    • Bail - Progressive/Libertarian: Cash Bail is a violation of due process rights and ought to be held unconstitutional.
    • Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Traditionalist: The 8th amendment only protects against what was cruel and unusual at the time. We need to greatly expand the powers of government to punish criminals including many banned forms of execution.
    • Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Conservative: Certain restrictions on the death penalty are acceptable such as either prohibiting its use against minors or particularly outdated modes of execution. Still, heinous crimes such as rape and murder ought to face the death penalty.
    • Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Moderate: The Death Penalty is permissible only for murder and when proper restrictions are met.
    • Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Liberal: The Death Penalty constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore unconstitutional.
    • Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Progressive/Libertarian: Not only is the death penalty unconstitutional, the current state of our prison system is a violation of the 8th amendment and needs major reform due to labor conditions and either violations.
  2. 2. Powers of Government

    • War Powers - Traditionalist: The President is Commander-in-Chief and therefore may wage war at any time in the name of national security with no need for Congressional approval. The AUMF is unnecessary.
    • War Powers - Conservative: The President may initiate military actions without the consent of Congress but Congress can provide oversight. The AUMF is Constitutional, congress may cede war power to the President.
    • War Powers - Moderate: The 30-day notification rule is constitutional. The AUMF is constitutional.
    • War Powers - Liberal: The President must notify Congress before waging war and is subject to their approval. The AUMF is constitutional.
    • War Powers - Progressive/Libertarian: Congress must approve war powers before the President acts. The AUMF is unconstitutional. Congress may never cede war power to the President.
    • Nondelegation Doctrine - Traditionalist/Schechter Poultry Corp. (1935): The Non-Delegation doctrine must be re-awoken to preserve the balance of power. Strict adherence to the powers of Congress as they are laid out in Article I. The President may not assume any authority not granted to him by Article II.
    • Nondelegation Doctrine - Conservative: Congress may delegate certain law enforcement duties to the President such as immigration law and drug enforcement. This may be done in the name of national security. They may not delegate administrative and regulatory power.
    • Nondelegation Doctrine - Moderate/Mistretta (1989): The Congress may reasonably delegate its authority to the executive branch to ensure for smooth function of Government as long as it provides an “intelligible principle.”
    • Nondelegation Doctrine - Liberal: Congress may delegate authority in most all cases to the Executive branch. This is simply how our government is run in the modern world.
    • Nondelegation Doctrine - Progressive: The Congress may and should delegate as much administrative and regulatory power to the executive as possible to ensure that special interest Congress cannot stop important regulation and spending from being executed.
    • Federalism - Hard Federalist: The 10th amendment means what it says and says what it means. No power not explicitly granted to the federal government in Articles I through VI shall be reserved for the states and local governments.
    • Federalism - Soft Federalist: Some exceptions must be made to the modern world. The Federal government may issue certain regulations on issues such as education or transportation where interstate cooperation is beneficial.
    • Federalism - Moderate: There must be a balance between federal and state power. The Federal government can lead broad national policies while the states adjust them to fit their locality.
    • Federalism - Soft Unitarian: The Federal Government has more power than the states put together but the states and their legislatures can still pass local laws. The federal government guides all policy-making nationally.
    • Federalism - Hard Unitarian: States should have very little power whatsoever in areas wherein the federal government shall have already intervened. State Governments must always defer to the federal government and would largely be a formality.
  3. 3. Social Issues

    • Immigration - Traditionalist: Illegal Immigrants have no rights or legal protections. The Federal government, particularly the Executive Branch, has broad authority to restrict immigration as it sees fit in the name of national security. Localities should turn over any illegal immigrants for any crime.
    • Immigration - Conservative: Illegal Immigrants are not constitutionally protected but they do have certain rights. The Constitution only applies to American citizens. The Federal government has broad authority to regulate immigration but needs Congressional approval/oversight.
    • Immigration - Moderate/Arizona (2012): States may or may not cooperate with the federal government but may not impose their own immigration laws. Immigration is largely a federal concern and a political question.
    • Immigration - Liberal: Sanctuary Cities are constitutionally protected and undocumented immigrants have legal protections.
    • Immigration - Progressive/Libertarian: Undocumented Immigrants have full constitutional protections. ICE regularly executes unconstitutional orders. Immmigration is an entirely Congressional matter and the DHS is mostly unconstitutional in action.
    • LGBT Rights - Traditionalist/Bowers (1986): The government may impose sodomy laws which regulate sexual activity of homosexuals.
    • LGBT Rights - Conservative/Romer (1996): Marriage is defined as one man and one woman and both the state and federal governments have the right to define it that way.
    • LGBT Rights - Moderate/Lawrence (2003): The government may not criminalize sodomy. However, Sexual Orientation is not a protected class and same-sex marriage bans are constitutional.
    • LGBT Rights - Liberal/Obergefell (2015): Marriage Equality is a necessity under the 14th amendment. Neither states nor the federal government may ban same-sex marriage. Sexual Orientation is a protected class.
    • LGBT Rights - Progressive/Libertarian/Bostock (2020): Full federal protection must be granted to LGBTQ+ people. All sex discrimination laws also protect against sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination.
    • Civil Rights Laws - Traditionalist: The Federal government may not discriminate but state government discrimination is permissible.
      0
    • Civil Rights Laws - Libertarian/Civil Rights Cases (1883): State discrimination is impermissible but the government cannot bar private businesses from discriminating against individuals. Civil Liberties over Civil Rights.
    • Civil Rights Laws - Conservative: The government may enforce civil rights laws to protect people of color and women but not LGBT people.
    • Civil Rights Laws - Moderate/Heart of Atlanta (1964): The Federal government can enforce civil rights laws against all businesses participating in interstate commerce.
    • Civil Rights Laws - Liberal/Katzenbach (1964): The Federal government can enforce civil rights laws against virtually private businesses. They must apply to all protected classes.
    • Civil Rights Laws - Progressive: Civil Rights Laws must be expanded so that they apply to every conceivable protected class and they apply to all institutions public and private. There are no exceptions. Civil Rights over Civil Liberties.
    • Abortion - Traditionalist: Not only is abortion not constitutionally protected, murder laws which discriminate against the unborn are unconstitutional given that the unborn are persons and must be afforded equal protection.
    • Abortion - Conservative: There is no constitutionally protected right to abortion. States must make their own abortion laws and the federal government may also pass certain restrictions.
    • Abortion - Moderate: There is a constitutionally protected right to abortion up through the first month of pregnancy.
    • Abortion - Liberal: There is a constitutionally protected right to abortion until fetal viability.
    • Abortion - Progressive: There is a constitutionally protected right to abortion until birth.
    • Right to Privacy - Traditionalist: There is no right to privacy, the government has broad regulatory power over social concerns and personal actions.
      0
    • Right to Privacy - Conservative/Libertarian: There is no broad constitutional right to privacy in the social instances of contraception and abortion. However, privacy rights are protected via the 4th amendment.
    • Right to Privacy - Moderate: There is a generic right to privacy but it has been used to justify far too many judicially activist opinions.
    • Right to Privacy - Liberal: The right to privacy is to thank for constitutionally protected contraception and abortion. It is paramount.
    • Right to Privacy - Progressive: The right to privacy must be expanded. Even if not directly found in the constitution, the court must act to protect the personal lives of the American people.
    • Voting Rights - Traditionalist: The state has a vested interest in keeping voting rights restricted to the most educated and ruling class! Poll Taxes and Literacy Tests are constitutional.
      0
    • Voting Rights - Conservative/Shelby (2013): Voter ID Laws are important for holding fair elections. The Voting Rights Act is outdated by some measures.
    • Voting Rights - Moderate/Katenzenbach (1966): The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the gold standard for protecting voting rights in the country.
    • Voting Rights - Liberal: Voter ID Laws are more often than not unconstitutional. Expand the Voting Rights Act. We need to be vigilant in keeping the right to vote highly accessible.
    • Voting Rights - Progressive/Libertarian: Voting Rights are consistently under siege! We need full re-enfranchisement for ex-felons and total enfranchisement for those convicted of misdemeanors. Voter ID Laws often target minorities and must be held under strict scrutiny.
  4. 4. Economic Issues

    • Tariff Power - Libertarian: The President has no unilateral power to set tariffs. This is entirely a Congressional authority.
    • Tariff Power - Conserative: The President has the authority to set tariffs or to sanction enemies in the name of national security. Otherwise it is a congressional authority.
    • Tariff Power - Moderate: The President and Congress must work together to establish appropriate tariff levels.
    • Tariff Power - Liberal: The President has the authority to set tariffs for humanitarian emergency reasons, it is mostly a Congressional authority.
    • Tariff Power - Progressive: The President has broad authority to set tariffs in order to save American jobs and protect American workers.
    • Budgetary Power - Libertarian: The power of appropriation is entirely a Congressional one. Budgets are to begin in the House and be approved by the Senate and signed by the President.
    • Budgetary Power - Conservative: The budget is a Congressional power. However, the President may make certain revisions to it in times of national emergency in the name of national security.
    • Budgetary Power - Moderate: The budget is a Congressional power. Still, the executive branch should be given leeway in the interpretation of how funds are prioritized.
    • Budgetary Power - Liberal: The President has broad authority to interpret Congress’ budget in a way that allows for more effective spending on the general welfare.
    • Budgetary Power - Progressive: The President may declare national humanitarian emergencies to adapt the Congressional budget. The President has broad authority to interpret and change the appropriation of funds in the name of the national welfare.
    • Interstate Commerce - Libertarian: We must awaken the dormant commerce clause! Congress has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce.
    • Interstate Commerce - Conservative/NFIB (2012): Congress has some authority over intrastate commerce but cannot coerce consumers into purchases.
    • Interstate Commerce - Moderate/Lopez (1995): Congress has moderate authority over intrastate commerce as long as the regulated activity is economic in nature and directly affects interstate commerce.
    • Interstate Commerce - Liberal/NLRB (1937): Congress has wide authority over intrastate commerce as long as it “closely and substantially” relates to interstate commerce.
    • Interstate Commerce - Progressive/Wickard (1942): Congress may regulate essentially all commerce as long as it can be proved that there is an indirect effect on interstate commerce.
    • Economic Liberty - Libertarian/Allgeyer (1897): There is a broad constitutional right to economic liberty which minimum wage and labor laws violate and as such are unconstitutional.
    • Economic Liberty - Conservative/Lochner (1905): There is a constitutional right to contract implicit in the due process clause and government may not infringe upon this right.
    • Economic Liberty - Moderate/West Coast Hotel (1937): There is no broad right to economic liberty and the right to contract is regulatable. Government has broad authority over contractual regulation.
    • Economic Liberty - Liberal: There is no implicit right to contract. The government has broad authority in creating contract and other economic regulations.
    • Economic Liberty - Progressive: There is an implicit right to a living wage and certain labor laws that cannot be infringed. Economic Liberty works on the side of the union/worker and not the management/entrepreneur.
  5. 5. Self-Described Jurisprudence

    • Intentionalism: Based on gauging the intents of the Founding Fathers.
    • Originalism: Applies the original meaning of what it would have meant at the time of its enactment to an average reader.
    • Prudentialism/Stare Decisis: Courts should avoid rocking the boat and changing precedent or setting new ones that would limit future court’s ability to rule.
    • Strict Constructionism: Read the text only as written; once a clear legal meaning has been established there is no need for further legal analysis.
    • Structuralism: Read the text “against the larger document”. Determine meaning by analyzing the structure of the document.
    • Textualism: Interpret based on the ordinary legal meaning of the text.
    • Living Constitution/Loose Constructionism: The Constitution has a dynamic meaning and evolving adaptations.
    • Activist: Tend to favor Court action to reach favored outcomes. Less attention to Stare Decisis.
    • Restraintist: Tends to defer to Stare Decisis and put less stock in an activist court even if it means ruling against your beliefs.


Recommended Posts

Answer the above questions so that we can put together our forum court as I was talking to @vcczar about.

Please pick the answers that you feel represent you best. There are 5 mega categories and within them several smaller categories. You may pick as many answers as you feel you need to to best represent your philosophy on the issue but if you feel your need to pick contradicting answers, please elaborate in the thread below.

We start by looking at the Bill of Rights and the individual liberties granted to people. Then I ask a few questions about the structure of government and checks and balances. Then we're onto social issues that have come before the court and finally we talk a little bit about some of the economic law questions the court deals with.

The last question has to do with a self-diagnostic of how one approaches the law. This has mostly to do with your interpretation and even though certain interpretive styles have been associated with different ideologies, one can still be an activist conservative or an originalist liberal. Do your best to answer as best you can and always feel free to elaborate!

This took a long time to assemble and stretches 20 pages on google docs, so I hope y'all enjoy.

Let us assemble the SCOT270F.

@vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

I look forward to seeing your responses!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

My masterpiece cakeshop caveat:  A business may refuse to do a certain action based on religious principles, provided that it's applied equally across the board.  For example, if a bakery refuses a bachelorette party's request for a penis shaped cake, the bakery may object provided that they would never make a penis shaped cake for anybody regardless of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc.  

But if a bakery does make wedding cakes, then they must provide a wedding cake to every paying customer regardless of gender, race, sexuality, religion, etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If I picked more than one in a category its because I have a range and would likely fluctuate somewhere around there. I'm moderate a few times, but I'm mostly Liberal to Progressive in most of these areas. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Voter ID laws:  Having a government ID should be a 100% requirement for voting.

And government IDs should also be free, and easy to obtain (provided of course that you are in fact the person you are trying to get an ID for).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Note: I accidentally clicked the Dogmatic option on the Separation Of Church And State section. I also clicked on the progressive option, and that is my actual answer. I am not a theocrat, so don't worry. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Chose both on Textualism and Living Constitution. For example, the constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it does not prohibit the regulation of it. I do support gun control but not to an extreme level of say... ban and confiscate all guns, or handguns only allowed. All depends on the issue and wordings for me... applying them to a modern standard is also important. 

Edit:

Also on the LGBT rights... meant to select both Liberal and Progressive... Only selected Liberal. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For Bail, could swing between the four I selected. If a case was brought fourth which made it out to be unconstitutional I could be swayed potentially.  

Voting Rights, if they have served their time or debt they should gain the ability to vote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only section I didn’t respond to at all was about freedom of the press.

i was the closest on this one: 

  • Freedom of Press - Moderate/Sullivan (1964): In order for a press report to be libellous against a public official, there must be “actual malice”.
But instead of actual malice, I would add willful negligence.  If you didn’t bother to even try to confirm whether something is true before you print it, you should be accountable for that.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Answer the above questions so that we can put together our forum court as I was talking to @vcczar about.

Please pick the answers that you feel represent you best. There are 5 mega categories and within them several smaller categories. You may pick as many answers as you feel you need to to best represent your philosophy on the issue but if you feel your need to pick contradicting answers, please elaborate in the thread below.

We start by looking at the Bill of Rights and the individual liberties granted to people. Then I ask a few questions about the structure of government and checks and balances. Then we're onto social issues that have come before the court and finally we talk a little bit about some of the economic law questions the court deals with.

The last question has to do with a self-diagnostic of how one approaches the law. This has mostly to do with your interpretation and even though certain interpretive styles have been associated with different ideologies, one can still be an activist conservative or an originalist liberal. Do your best to answer as best you can and always feel free to elaborate!

This took a long time to assemble and stretches 20 pages on google docs, so I hope y'all enjoy.

Let us assemble the SCOT270F.

@vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

I look forward to seeing your responses!

My views on Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State/Religious Liberty are very nuanced. But one thing I definitely would like to see an end to is the "weaponization," of those rights against other citizens' rights in the same, or other areas, and is being done by a great many people on both sides of the traditional American socio-political divide in a general sense. Far too many Supreme Court Justices are "playing along," with this travesty if it suits their personal beliefs, and I believe their hands should be mandatorily tied on this regard. I'll get more back to you a bit later.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Patine said:

My views on Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State/Religious Liberty are very nuanced. But one thing I definitely would like to see an end to is the "weaponization," of those rights against other citizens' rights in the same, or other areas, and is being done by a great many people on both sides of the traditional American socio-political divide in a general sense. Far too many Supreme Court Justices are "playing along," with this travesty if it suits their personal beliefs, and I believe their hands should be mandatorily tied on this regard. I'll get more back to you a bit later.

Certainly, feel free to skip that section if you feel you must or pick the answer or combination of answers you feel best represents your views and then elaborate further in the threat, either way I greatly appreciate participation in the poll :) 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably need time to do it carefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Reagan04 Thank you so much for this great poll!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

@Reagan04 Thank you so much for this great poll!

Agreed. This is probably one of the greatest and certainly one of the most well put together polls I've ever seen posted in my 5 years here.

@Reagan04, thank you for taking what was almost certainly hours and hours to put this together!!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...