[GodAndCountryFirst]

This makes a GREAT point. But I would go even farther. How can we continue to have a Supreme Court that defies not only the Constitution, but the ages-old LAW OF GOD upon which the Constitution is based?

The U.S. Constitution cannot be properly understood or interpreted outside the context of the Biblical roots of all Western law. So, to make "legal opinions" that contradict the Word of God is to violate the Constitution as well.

We could address this by appointing Supreme Court judges for their Biblical knowledge as well as their legal knowledge. Justices without a firm grasp of scripture (the Law of God, which stands above all law) cannot adequately do their jobs.

Another option might be to require Supreme Court cases to be heard by both a secular court and one steeped in Biblical Law. In cases where the two courts disagree, they could meet in conference committee (the way they House and Senate do) to work things out.

Either way, I think the goal should be to re-focus on the source of our law and make sure judges are looking at the whole picture.

[bigheadfred]

SCOTUS COTUS AND POTUS all need slapped down

[Paladin2]

Traitor Roberts screwed the pooch with 0bamaDontCare.

[Sgt_Schultze]

The debate should focus on the role of the Supreme Court within the Republic and its duty to interpret the Constitution.

There is no Constitutional stipulation that this is the role of the Court. It is an authority the Court arrogated to itself in Marbury v Madison. But for that determination by the Court in the earliest of days, to grow beyond its mandate, we might still have a Constitution today which resembled that which the framers contemplated.

[DoughtyOne]

Seems to me this is a very good idea, and one certain to doom us if it were very adopted.

Another option might be to require Supreme Court cases to be heard by both a secular court and one steeped in Biblical Law. You mean sort of like a Shariah court?

No, I think that's a bad idea. Leave it as it is, but ask broader questions and quick picking dumb asses like Roberts out of the blue.

That Obamacare ruling was one of the worst decisions ever.

[DoughtyOne]

meant:

...quit picking...

[napscoordinator]

The conservatives and liberals are both pissed at the Supreme Court. Conservatives for gay marriage and liberals for the voting act. This might be the best time to change the Supreme Court with everyone mad. Lol.

[Logical me]

The debate should focus on the role of the Supreme Court within the Republic and its duty to interpret the Constitution.

The liberal part of the Court probably never understood the Constitution and don't give a damn.

[infowarrior]

The debate should focus on the role of the Supreme Court within the Republic and its duty to interpret the Constitution.

Say what? The Constitution is written in plain English, and thus needs *no* 'interpretation'. The most wicked mischief ensues, whenever some buffoon tries to 'interpret' it...

the infowarrior