Justice?

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the final arbiter of justice based on the guidelines in the Constitution.

Is the current Supreme court issuing justice or political decisions?

The U.S. Supreme Court was not established to be the "final arbiter of justice," but rather to interpret whether a law falls within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, when blacks in this country were slaves, the Supreme Court found that the institution of slavery was "constitutional." Would anyone here argue that slavery as an institution represents justice in any way, shape, or form? I don't think so. This illustrates that "justice" per se is not the purview of the Supreme Court.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by smc

The U.S. Supreme Court was not established to be the "final arbiter of justice," but rather to interpret whether a law falls within the strictures of the U.S. Constitution. Hence, when blacks in this country were slaves, the Supreme Court found that the institution of slavery was "constitutional." Would anyone here argue that slavery as an institution represents justice in any way, shape, or form? I don't think so. This illustrates that "justice" per se is not the purview of the Supreme Court.

When the Constitution was being developed, the issue of slavery was discussed and some members wanted it abolished. The final version avoided the issue. So in a sense, slavery was neither Constitutional or unconstitutional.

When Earl Warren was on the Supreme Court, he would ask before making a decision "is it fair?". To me, that is the same as, is it just?. Justice is the "purview" of the Supreme Court because the Constitution is based on the concept of Justice. "Liberty and justice for all"

It seems to me that the current court is dominated by members that put their personal extreme conservatism above the realities of the Constitution.
The decision to allow corporations to buy Congress was one of the most egregious unfair unjust decisions ever made by the Court and is unconstitutional, in my opinion.

[randolph]

Tracy

1. - yes, but unfortunately was drug out far longer than it should have been because half the support for the war evaporated.

I don't think is dragged out for lack of support. It dragged out because of extremely poor planning for the implementation of the war by Rumsfield.

2. - I don't know any iraqis, but I'd imagine it's nice not to have to worry about being gassed and to be able to elect your own leaders.

The war was devastating for the people of Iraq and opened up a contentious battle between Shias and Sunnies for control of the country that probably will never be resolved.

3. - No, was it supposed to? It could have if the support remained. With troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and control of the Persian Gulf, we could have mounted operations from east, south and west. From what was said after 9/11 this was probably the initial strategy. But, thank your congressmen & hollywood experts - support for this was over.

Again it is a conflict between Sunnies and Shias. Iran is run by fanatical Shias and is of great concern to Saudi Arabia who has just ordered billions of dollars of military equipment to bolster their military.

4. - Yes. Iraq acted like an Al Qaeda magnet. We didn't have to fight them in the US, we could do it in Iraq, and we did.

Al Qaeda was a minor issue in Iraq. If we had focused on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, we could have cleaned out Al Qaeda and possibly stabilized Afghanistan.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

The war was devastating for the people of Iraq and opened up a contentious battle between Shias and Sunnies for control of the country that probably will never be resolved.

Just wondering... say we never went to war with Iraq in 2003. Flash forward to 2011 and there are riots happening in countries all over the middle east as there are now. Do you think the Shias and/or the Sunnies would rebel against Saddam? It's happened in so many countries I can't imagine that it wouldn't have happened in Iraq as well. Some will call that hypothetical, but I really can't think of any reason why it wouldn't. And I find it interesting that neither of the two groups are rebelling now.

About question 3... Sorry, when I originally answered your question about Iran, I originally thought you asked if the war DECREASED the influence of Iran. Yes, it did increase the influence of Iran. And back to what I was saying earlier, we could have taken care of Iran with our strategic position if support for the war against terror had survived the 2004 election.

Originally Posted by randolph

Al Qaeda was a minor issue in Iraq. If we had focused on Afghanistan instead of Iraq, we could have cleaned out Al Qaeda and possibly stabilized Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda never was a one country organization. They had abandoned Afghanistan after we took control of the country. They weren't going to come back and fight for it. When we went to war with Iraq they saw that our influence in the region was about to expand a great deal more and they did want to fight against that.

btw... for those who say our presence there caused bitter acrimony against the US in the muslim world, they should have thought about that before they attacked the US. The fact is that the US was attacked by muslim extremists. I don't criticize them for attacking the pentagon. It's an act of war, certainly, but I recognize that that's a military target. That bullshit they pulled in New York is another matter. Did Al Qaeda consider that that might cause bitter acrimony in the US against muslims?

[randolph]

Tracy

Just wondering... say we never went to war with Iraq in 2003. Flash forward to 2011 and there are riots happening in countries all over the middle east as there are now. Do you think the Shias and/or the Sunnies would rebel against Saddam? It's happened in so many countries I can't imagine that it wouldn't have happened in Iraq as well. Some will call that hypothetical, but I really can't think of any reason why it wouldn't. And I find it interesting that neither of the two groups are rebelling now.

Interesting thought. After years of war and violence, the Iraqi's are free of tyranny. Conflict continues between the the religious sects for power. As tyranny declines in Africa and the Middle East, I suspect tribal and religious conflicts will escalate and make governing these countries very difficult. Western style democracy is wishful thinking. Some kind of strong leadership will eventually evolve that is able to suppress all the conflicts. Syria is coming unglued. Who is next Iran or Saudi Arabia?

btw... for those who say our presence there caused bitter acrimony against the US in the muslim world, they should have thought about that before they attacked the US. The fact is that the US was attacked by muslim extremists. I don't criticize them for attacking the pentagon. It's an act of war, certainly, but I recognize that that's a military target. That bullshit they pulled in New York is another matter. Did Al Qaeda consider that that might cause bitter acrimony in the US against muslims?

The "terrorist" mentality seems very self destructive to me. Everything they do strengthens their opposition and increases the hate and suspicion of Islam. What is the point of suicide bombers that kill themselves and a few innocent people? To me Al Quida is the very essence of evil.
I understand the opposition of Muslims to the dominance of the West in the middle East. The rebellions across the area are not inspired by Al Quida, however, they are derived from over population, unemployment and lack of opportunity to have a decent life.

[The Conquistador]

There are only 3 forms of justice in this world: Chuck Norris, Shaq and Steven Seagal...

[giggygig]

Shouldnt this be discussed in a american section not general discussion?
I dont really have a clue what you are talking about. Not knowing your politics but healthcare should be free and not run for profit.