The 'forgotten' Supreme Court decision and its impact on our politics

Fox News ^ | September 9, 2018 | Bill Mears

[familyop]

Amid the current national debate over immigration policies, racial discrimination, LGBTQ rights, and executive power, the anniversary of an important legal and political dispute that has directly shaped that debate will pass quietly, its legacy all but forgotten. In September 1958, sixty years ago next week, the United States Supreme Court finally earned its hard-fought reputation as a co-equal branch of the federal government, in a courtroom drama filled with urgency and uncertainty. For perhaps the first time, the high court put muscle behind its mandate, asserting in unequivocal terms that its interpretation of the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land," and ordering immediate state compliance.

[familyop]

You might not want to follow the link, if you have high blood pressure.

[Ken522]

“Forgotten”? Are you kidding?

[trebb]

OTOH - SCOTUS doesn’t have an Army to enforce it’s decisions....

[VRWCarea51]

So when the USSC rules that States passing Sanctuary City Laws are Unconstitutional let’s see what the lemmings do.

[Publius]

Worthy of a Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping.

[PGalt]

Great ping; post. Thanks.

(interesting comments at the source) BUMP!

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Personally I have no problem if the Supreme Court uses a case involving specific individuals to render a judgment that will affect all states, US citizens and residents.

But they should be reluctant to do so and only in doing so by following a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

Their "reluctance" can be registered by which particular cases they decide to take up. And their judgments should clearly state whether they apply only to the claimants or to all states, citizens and residents.

Given that states have a special status with regard to the US Constitution, the Supreme Court should allow the several states to follow whatever judgments they lay down in their own particular ways. However, "their own particular ways" should not be interpreted so liberally that they can ignore or countermand the judgment through inaction or the enacting of laws that do nothing to respect the judgment.

[GailA]

Old enough to have lived through it. But take heart, this is the KEY PHRASE!

or perhaps the first time, the high court put muscle behind its mandate, asserting in unequivocal terms that its interpretation of the Constitution was the "supreme law of the land," and ordering immediate state compliance.

Which means ALL of the CONSTITUTION, especially 1, 2, 4, 10, and 25th. DUMBO should have been Impeached in other words.

[M Kehoe]

Good afternoon, I hope you are well.

Thanks for the ping.

SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of government when they can unilaterally enforce their ruling.

Give me the Executive branch and a battalion of Marines and we”’ll get sh!t done.

After a question from a reporter back in 1948 regarding the Holy See and how communist would rule, Stalin said, how many divisions does the pope have?

Just sayin

5.56mm

[Lurkinanloomin]

Obama should not have been allowed to take the oath of office.
The Supreme Court ducked the question.

[ml/nj]

Rush Limbaugh did an interesting analogy of this match to the current day political climate on his show today. He compared Osaka's win to Trump's surprise win in the 2016 election and Serena Williams to HRC as the sore loser.

Very poor analogy.

Serena Williams is a world class athlete. She got to where she is on her own merits. Hillary rode someone else's coattails to achieve her status. She has accomplished nothing on her own at least since she earned her law degree.

ML/NJ

[1FreeAmerican]

HRottenC is a world class liar and thief. In other words a politician.