Exactly How ‘Supreme’ Is The Court???

[PoliticalChic]

Now, you may mean simply superior to every other court in the country….OK….true.

But if that spills over into a belief that it is higher in quality, character, judgment and/or moral insight……no way.


1.First of all, it is born of theft and illegitimacy: the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law. The ‘Supreme’ Court simply claimed that power, and it has spread in directions the Founders never imagined.




2.“On one side of this “culture war” is the majority of the American people, largely committed to traditional American values, practices, and institutions.
On the other side is what might be called the “knowledge” or “verbal” class or “cultural elite,” consisting primarily of academics, most importantly at elite schools, and their progeny in the media, mainline churches, and generally, the verbal or literary occupations—people whose only tools and products are words.

At one time the most educated and successful members of a society could be expected to be its strongest defenders. Today, however, for a variety of reasons, they—particularly academics—often see it as part of their function to maintain an adversary relationship with their society, to challenge its values and assumptions, and to lead it to the acceptance of newer and presumably better values.


The justices of the Supreme Court, usually products of elite schools, especially law schools, are themselves members of this cultural class.”
Professor Lino Graglia
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




…the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—as on every one of the issues just mentioned—to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values.” Ibid.





Sooo….if you believe the court ‘superior’….superior to your own best instincts and judgment…..



….then you probably voted for Hillary.

 

[TNHarley]

The supreme court is nothing but power hungry political activists appointed by a partisan hack and approved by other partisan hacks, that were voted in by complete fucking morons.
Supreme? Depends on your interpretation. Pun intended.

 

[mudwhistle]

The supreme court is nothing but power hungry political activists appointed by a partisan hack and approved by other partisan hacks, that were voted in by complete fucking morons.
Supreme? Depends on your interpretation. Pun intended.

The Supreme Court is just a pack of wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.

 

[PoliticalChic]

3. Relying on my knowledge, intellect and upbringing, I never assign my moral or cultural values to anyone else. Hence, I’m conservative…..on all things except condiments.


4. “Until the Supreme Court is restored to its Constitutional and traditional role, we will never have peace

Knowing men would try to accumulate power, either for personal gain or simply because they felt entitled to rule over lesser men, the Founders devised a brilliant plan to divide power, both between the Federal Government and the States and also between the various branches of Government.

Under this framework, the Judiciary applies the law; it does not make the law.

… the Supreme Court has claimed jurisdiction over many of the most important questions of our time. Short-circuiting the political process, partisan judges have imposed new laws from the bench,…”
The Supreme Court is Destroying National Unity




Supreme, meaning superior in judgment????

Not to me.

 

[night_son]

Now, you may mean simply superior to every other court in the country….OK….true.

But if that spills over into a belief that it is higher in quality, character, judgment and/or moral insight……no way.


1.First of all, it is born of theft and illegitimacy: the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law. The ‘Supreme’ Court simply claimed that power, and it has spread in directions the Founders never imagined.




2.“On one side of this “culture war” is the majority of the American people, largely committed to traditional American values, practices, and institutions.
On the other side is what might be called the “knowledge” or “verbal” class or “cultural elite,” consisting primarily of academics, most importantly at elite schools, and their progeny in the media, mainline churches, and generally, the verbal or literary occupations—people whose only tools and products are words.

At one time the most educated and successful members of a society could be expected to be its strongest defenders. Today, however, for a variety of reasons, they—particularly academics—often see it as part of their function to maintain an adversary relationship with their society, to challenge its values and assumptions, and to lead it to the acceptance of newer and presumably better values.


The justices of the Supreme Court, usually products of elite schools, especially law schools, are themselves members of this cultural class.”
Professor Lino Graglia
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




…the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—as on every one of the issues just mentioned—to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values.” Ibid.





Sooo….if you believe the court ‘superior’….superior to your own best instincts and judgment…..



….then you probably voted for Hillary.

I was just following a similar line of thought. One about how our government ruling systems from time out of mind have been founded upon varying aspects of belief and thought, and the realization that for the last two centuries, our political systems have been founded on pure thought, rather than what is best for survival of the individual within the greater framework of the nation-whole.

For millennia government rule was based on the supremacy of aristocrat blood, and the God chosen to rule monarch, translated from the divine and verified for all by an empowered religious class. Of course there were exceptions both ways on the measuring stick of 'for survival' vs. oppression of the individual. However, personal value of the individual awarded by his or her government really did not manifest in a form we can recognize today until our Founders came along and handed us the Constitution. In some respects, that sacred document was the framework for the first government founded on the concept of survival and defense of the individual citizen.

But something happened not long after America's national birth. Somewhere the philosophies of the pure intellectual academic, worshipper of the etherial dominion of understanding all by uncoerced thought alone, traded the supernal for the interpretive abstract, for all of us the world over. In that academic transition, another similar one was made in world forms of governance and political doctrine.

And now, in our current Age, the infection of the thinker who rationalizes away any and all forms of moral fact, redefines the human condition as social construct and uses theories of intellect to design and implement the "new world man", has seized control of half our government. Thinking away an obstruction with force of thought alone, does not remove it from the road, but it can be used to convince the driver no obstruction exists, or ever has. That is what we on the Right are dealing with.

The Supreme Court is a purely intellectual, ideological thought group, so relativistic in their rulings that consideration or empathy for the individual American has been intellectualized away. Problems exist for the everyman, and yet the Court would convince us they do not and never have, unless they have been recorded in lower court case files. Morality is absent because in the intellectual elitist's call for ultimate objectivity and clinical indifference, the state of being human must not be human.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Now, you may mean simply superior to every other court in the country….OK….true.

But if that spills over into a belief that it is higher in quality, character, judgment and/or moral insight……no way.


1.First of all, it is born of theft and illegitimacy: the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law. The ‘Supreme’ Court simply claimed that power, and it has spread in directions the Founders never imagined.




2.“On one side of this “culture war” is the majority of the American people, largely committed to traditional American values, practices, and institutions.
On the other side is what might be called the “knowledge” or “verbal” class or “cultural elite,” consisting primarily of academics, most importantly at elite schools, and their progeny in the media, mainline churches, and generally, the verbal or literary occupations—people whose only tools and products are words.

At one time the most educated and successful members of a society could be expected to be its strongest defenders. Today, however, for a variety of reasons, they—particularly academics—often see it as part of their function to maintain an adversary relationship with their society, to challenge its values and assumptions, and to lead it to the acceptance of newer and presumably better values.


The justices of the Supreme Court, usually products of elite schools, especially law schools, are themselves members of this cultural class.”
Professor Lino Graglia
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf




…the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—as on every one of the issues just mentioned—to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values.” Ibid.





Sooo….if you believe the court ‘superior’….superior to your own best instincts and judgment…..



….then you probably voted for Hillary.

I was just following a similar line of thought. One about how our government ruling systems from time out of mind have been founded upon varying aspects of belief and thought, and the realization that for the last two centuries, our political systems have been founded on pure thought, rather than what is best for survival of the individual within the greater framework of the nation-whole.

For millennia government rule was based on the supremacy of aristocrat blood, and the God chosen to rule monarch, translated from the divine and verified for all by an empowered religious class. Of course there were exceptions both ways on the measuring stick of 'for survival' vs. oppression of the individual. However, personal value of the individual awarded by his or her government really did not manifest in a form we can recognize today until our Founders came along and handed us the Constitution. In some respects, that sacred document was the framework for the first government founded on the concept of survival and defense of the individual citizen.

But something happened not long after America's national birth. Somewhere the philosophies of the pure intellectual academic, worshipper of the etherial dominion of understanding all by uncoerced thought alone, traded the supernal for the interpretive abstract, for all of us the world over. In that academic transition, another similar one was made in world forms of governance and political doctrine.

And now, in our current Age, the infection of the thinker who rationalizes away any and all forms of moral fact, redefines the human condition as social construct and uses theories of intellect to design and implement the "new world man", has seized control of half our government. Thinking away an obstruction with force of thought alone, does not remove it from the road, but it can be used to convince the driver no obstruction exists, or ever has. That is what we on the Right are dealing with.

The Supreme Court is a purely intellectual, ideological thought group, so relativistic in their rulings that consideration or empathy for the individual American has been intellectualized away. Problems exist for the everyman, and yet the Court would convince us they do not and never have, unless they have been recorded in lower court case files. Morality is absent because in the intellectual elitist's call for ultimate objectivity and clinical indifference, the state of being human must not be human.

"But something happened not long after America's national birth."


Lets go back to early 19th century. Tocqueville pointed out that one side promises care from cradle to grave, as long as you do exactly as ordered.

Alexis de Tocqueville, writing “Democracy in America” in the 1830’s, described “an immense, tutelary power, which takes sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate.” As he predicted, this power is “absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident, and gentle,” and it “works willingly for their happiness, but it wishes to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness. It provides for their security, foresees and supplies their needs, guides them in their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their testaments, divides their inheritances.” It is entirely proper to ask, as he asked, whether it can “relieve them entirely of the trouble of thinking and of the effort associated with living.”


Certainly an enticing deal…if one is ready to give up one’s God-given intellect.





2. During the 19th century, progressivism was born in academia, which posited that there is a sort of individual of a higher level, who would guide the great unwashed.

This is the idea of the ‘administrative state.’


" ... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.” These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive, what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review





It is the doctrine of the administrative state, one run by unelected experts, bureaucrats, technocrats who know what is best for everyone else.....

....as in 9 black robed Justices.

 

[PoliticalChic]

5. “… greed for power can never be satiated. In Trump v Hawaii, a sizeable minority (four of nine justices) would have set aside immigration law to prevent a sitting President from fulfilling his duties under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f).


While expanding their own powers, these same justices showed little regard for First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion, as evidenced by their dissenting opinions in Life Advocates, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and Janus.

If these justices ever become a majority, is there any law they will not re-write? Would there be any restraint on their power to remake policy on any issue? Would any of our freedoms be safe?” The Supreme Court is Destroying National Unity


How is this out of control clique to be curtailed???


By demanding strict obedience to the Constitution.

 

[saltydancin]

Since the nation formerly known as the USA is now an Islamidiotocracy of Economic Pluribus Unum according to this Christian Nation supreme swastika up Uranus court demagoguery in democide rules for a definition of following a Bicentennial immaculate drug conception giving thieving US Constitution-old glory arsonists rite to federal sin along with a national religion of lynching enforcement for that more perfect union marriage of Islam & Christianity's second coming thru 9/11 thereby continuing that 2000 + years old fabricated misnomer of an immaculate conception in banking on deaths as an Islam opioid crisis to follow up so this master race survival of the fittest fascists master plan in being liberal & Christian suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathics of human farming megalomaniacal pyramid schemes.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since the nation formerly known as the USA is now an Islamidiotocracy of Economic Pluribus Unum according to this Christian Nation supreme swastika up Uranus court demagoguery in democide rules for a definition of following a Bicentennial immaculate drug conception giving thieving US Constitution-old glory arsonists rite to federal sin along with a national religion of lynching enforcement for that more perfect union marriage of Islam & Christianity's second coming thru 9/11 thereby continuing that 2000 + years old fabricated misnomer of an immaculate conception in banking on deaths as an Islam opioid crisis to follow up so this master race survival of the fittest fascists master plan in being liberal & Christian suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathics of human farming megalomaniacal pyramid schemes.

Seems I hit a nerve with this thread.

Calm down, salty, and elucidate your point.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.

Why????

The Constitution is written in English.


7. This is how the Left ‘fundamentally transforms’ America:

“They justify this power grab by claiming that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. Translated, that means, “When we are in charge, the Constitution means whatever the hell we say it means.” All dressed up in the obligatory legal doublespeak, of course.” The Supreme Court is Destroying National Unity

 

[saltydancin]

Since the nation formerly known as the USA is now an Islamidiotocracy of Economic Pluribus Unum according to this Christian Nation supreme swastika up Uranus court demagoguery in democide rules for a definition of following a Bicentennial immaculate drug conception giving thieving US Constitution-old glory arsonists rite to federal sin along with a national religion of lynching enforcement for that more perfect union marriage of Islam & Christianity's second coming thru 9/11 thereby continuing that 2000 + years old fabricated misnomer of an immaculate conception in banking on deaths as an Islam opioid crisis to follow up so this master race survival of the fittest fascists master plan in being liberal & Christian suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathics of human farming megalomaniacal pyramid schemes.

Seems I hit a nerve with this thread.

Calm down, salty, and elucidate your point.

Seems one nation under God with equal justice under law doesn't even apply in this self proclaimed Christian Nation, especially when it comes to thieving absentee voting ballot arsonists too. Amazing it wasn't another don't Jew get the point ?

 

[saltydancin]

Since the nation formerly known as the USA is now an Islamidiotocracy of Economic Pluribus Unum according to this Christian Nation supreme swastika up Uranus court demagoguery in democide rules for a definition of following a Bicentennial immaculate drug conception giving thieving US Constitution-old glory arsonists rite to federal sin along with a national religion of lynching enforcement for that more perfect union marriage of Islam & Christianity's second coming thru 9/11 thereby continuing that 2000 + years old fabricated misnomer of an immaculate conception in banking on deaths as an Islam opioid crisis to follow up so this master race survival of the fittest fascists master plan in being liberal & Christian suicidal homicidal sociopsychopathics of human farming megalomaniacal pyramid schemes.

Seems I hit a nerve with this thread.
Calm down, salty, and elucidate your point.

While it's supreme for the court to have some nerve to tax in order for Islam Christiananality pedophile mentalities to collect & profit hits a point.

 

[saltydancin]

6. This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.
Why????
The Constitution is written in English.
7. This is how the Left ‘fundamentally transforms’ America:
“They justify this power grab by claiming that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. Translated, that means, “When we are in charge, the Constitution means whatever the hell we say it means.” All dressed up in the obligatory legal doublespeak, of course.” The Supreme Court is Destroying National Unity

Sounds as if this "living breathing" document point-counterpoint has been cooperating all along as the communism of liberal Christianity is little more than monetary tabulations, or the bottom line is what the legal death count produces while all else is irrelevant .

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.
Why????
The Constitution is written in English.
7. This is how the Left ‘fundamentally transforms’ America:
“They justify this power grab by claiming that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. Translated, that means, “When we are in charge, the Constitution means whatever the hell we say it means.” All dressed up in the obligatory legal doublespeak, of course.” The Supreme Court is Destroying National Unity

Sounds as if this "living breathing" document point-counterpoint has been cooperating all along as the communism of liberal Christianity is little more than monetary tabulations, or the bottom line is what the legal death count produces while all else is irrelevant .

I find your post more gibberish and jargon than evincing an ability to articulate a point.

You must get that a lot, huh?

 

[saltydancin]

6. This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.
Why????
The Constitution is written in English.
7. This is how the Left ‘fundamentally transforms’ America:
“They justify this power grab by claiming that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. Translated, that means, “When we are in charge, the Constitution means whatever the hell we say it means.” All dressed up in the obligatory legal doublespeak, of course.” The Supreme Court is Destroying National Unity

Sounds as if this "living breathing" document point-counterpoint has been cooperating all along as the communism of liberal Christianity is little more than monetary tabulations, or the bottom line is what the legal death count produces while all else is irrelevant .

I find your post more gibberish and jargon than evincing an ability to articulate a point.

You must get that a lot, huh?

Only from the super egos master race national religion of Islam Christiananality pedophile mentalities engaged in some master plan of homicidal scoiopsychopathic human farming techniques.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. This is the corruption that has seeped into our judiciary:
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is."
Charles Evans Hughes.
Why????
The Constitution is written in English.
7. This is how the Left ‘fundamentally transforms’ America:
“They justify this power grab by claiming that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document. Translated, that means, “When we are in charge, the Constitution means whatever the hell we say it means.” All dressed up in the obligatory legal doublespeak, of course.” The Supreme Court is Destroying National Unity

Sounds as if this "living breathing" document point-counterpoint has been cooperating all along as the communism of liberal Christianity is little more than monetary tabulations, or the bottom line is what the legal death count produces while all else is irrelevant .

I find your post more gibberish and jargon than evincing an ability to articulate a point.

You must get that a lot, huh?

Only from the super egos master race national religion of Islam Christiananality pedophile mentalities engaged in some master plan of homicidal scoiopsychopathic human farming techniques.

The lack of a clear and cogent post is pretty much evidence of a lack of a clear and cogent mind.


Don't you agree?

 

[SavannahMann]

Marburg V. Madison exposed a flaw. One that needed to be addressed. There was no Judicial Review. You are correct. But... Here is the rub, one was needed. There had to be a final say on issues of law. Congress should have passed an Amendment laying the process out, but they let the Court assume the mantle. By not acting, they endorsed the action. Inaction is a choice. Doing nothing, is action.

There had to be a point where someone decided what the law meant, or how the Constitution would be applied. I’ve often pointed out that the First Amendment for example, does not say. “The Supreme Court shall upon review, find that any laws passed by Congress, and Signed by the President, or approved by a 2/3rd majority of the Congress, shall not abridge Freedom of Speech.” Etc.

It says Congress shall pass no laws. But it doesn’t have a remedy. Like the Ten Commandments, the penalty is apparently left up to God. The Fourth Amendment says that we shall be secure in our person and papers free from Unreasonable Search. Ok. What is unreasonable? Again, no one is listed as to decide what is, and is not unreasonable If it was simply left to the judge hearing the case, then what? If you get a right wing Judge, an Unreasonable Search might never exist. If you get a left wing judge, no search is ever reasonable. And those individual rulings would stand, unchallengeable. There being no where to take the question for an answer for a standardized opinion applicable for all.

So a point where the final binding answer would be found was needed. A point where the Constituional prohibition against Congress passing a law prohibiting would be enforced. Do I agree with all their decisions? No. But I voted for Gore, and shouted Coward at the computer when Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform law. Why?

Bush signed it and said he believed it was Unconstitutional. If he honestly believed it. He should not have passed the buck to the Supreme Court. But he did. I don’t have to agree with your stated beliefs, but I can admire someone who stands by those I don’t agree with. I did not agree with Alan Colmes on many issues. But I respected him tremendously. I respected him because he was consistent in his views no matter if it was the left or right doing the dumb and previously disapproved thing. He did not castigate the Right for doing things while giving the left a pass. I respected that.

Like the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights was intended to be a guide, a general principle we could all agree upon. The problem is, we all define those things differently. Many people believe that there is no such thing as cruel and unusual. Any punishment the baddie gets is not only warranted, but totally acceptable. The Rack is too good for them.

On the other hand, there are those who think any incarceration is cruel and unusual. Would you like that decision made on a case by case basis with only the whim of the Judge as the deciding factor? I mean, you could go into court for a traffic ticket and be sentenced to hard labor for months or years, because the Judge didn’t get any the night before, and no where could you appeal that ruling as inappropriate to the crime.

One was not provided, and one was desperately needed. Congress accepted it when they did not legislate a fix.

 

[DGS49]

The longer a Supreme Court opinion is (number of pages), the more likely that it is turning reality on its head. The cases are not really that complicated, nor is the Constitution. If it takes more than 5 pages to explain yourself, you are spouting nonsense.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marburg V. Madison exposed a flaw. One that needed to be addressed. There was no Judicial Review. You are correct. But... Here is the rub, one was needed. There had to be a final say on issues of law. Congress should have passed an Amendment laying the process out, but they let the Court assume the mantle. By not acting, they endorsed the action. Inaction is a choice. Doing nothing, is action.

There had to be a point where someone decided what the law meant, or how the Constitution would be applied. I’ve often pointed out that the First Amendment for example, does not say. “The Supreme Court shall upon review, find that any laws passed by Congress, and Signed by the President, or approved by a 2/3rd majority of the Congress, shall not abridge Freedom of Speech.” Etc.

It says Congress shall pass no laws. But it doesn’t have a remedy. Like the Ten Commandments, the penalty is apparently left up to God. The Fourth Amendment says that we shall be secure in our person and papers free from Unreasonable Search. Ok. What is unreasonable? Again, no one is listed as to decide what is, and is not unreasonable If it was simply left to the judge hearing the case, then what? If you get a right wing Judge, an Unreasonable Search might never exist. If you get a left wing judge, no search is ever reasonable. And those individual rulings would stand, unchallengeable. There being no where to take the question for an answer for a standardized opinion applicable for all.

So a point where the final binding answer would be found was needed. A point where the Constituional prohibition against Congress passing a law prohibiting would be enforced. Do I agree with all their decisions? No. But I voted for Gore, and shouted Coward at the computer when Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform law. Why?

Bush signed it and said he believed it was Unconstitutional. If he honestly believed it. He should not have passed the buck to the Supreme Court. But he did. I don’t have to agree with your stated beliefs, but I can admire someone who stands by those I don’t agree with. I did not agree with Alan Colmes on many issues. But I respected him tremendously. I respected him because he was consistent in his views no matter if it was the left or right doing the dumb and previously disapproved thing. He did not castigate the Right for doing things while giving the left a pass. I respected that.

Like the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights was intended to be a guide, a general principle we could all agree upon. The problem is, we all define those things differently. Many people believe that there is no such thing as cruel and unusual. Any punishment the baddie gets is not only warranted, but totally acceptable. The Rack is too good for them.

On the other hand, there are those who think any incarceration is cruel and unusual. Would you like that decision made on a case by case basis with only the whim of the Judge as the deciding factor? I mean, you could go into court for a traffic ticket and be sentenced to hard labor for months or years, because the Judge didn’t get any the night before, and no where could you appeal that ruling as inappropriate to the crime.

One was not provided, and one was desperately needed. Congress accepted it when they did not legislate a fix.

"There had to be a point where someone decided what the law meant, or how the Constitution would be applied."

Applied???
The Constitution is written in English.

The intention was for a Supreme Court to show how the languge of the Constitution either allowed a law, or did not.

If not....the Supreme Court has no business adjudicating....and the state courts had that right. That's federalism.




"...decision made on a case by case basis with only the whim of the Judge as the deciding factor?"
That's the situation we have currently.



Elected executives should simply overrule any Supreme Court decision not consistent with the will of the people:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????



“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.

 

[SavannahMann]

Marburg V. Madison exposed a flaw. One that needed to be addressed. There was no Judicial Review. You are correct. But... Here is the rub, one was needed. There had to be a final say on issues of law. Congress should have passed an Amendment laying the process out, but they let the Court assume the mantle. By not acting, they endorsed the action. Inaction is a choice. Doing nothing, is action.

There had to be a point where someone decided what the law meant, or how the Constitution would be applied. I’ve often pointed out that the First Amendment for example, does not say. “The Supreme Court shall upon review, find that any laws passed by Congress, and Signed by the President, or approved by a 2/3rd majority of the Congress, shall not abridge Freedom of Speech.” Etc.

It says Congress shall pass no laws. But it doesn’t have a remedy. Like the Ten Commandments, the penalty is apparently left up to God. The Fourth Amendment says that we shall be secure in our person and papers free from Unreasonable Search. Ok. What is unreasonable? Again, no one is listed as to decide what is, and is not unreasonable If it was simply left to the judge hearing the case, then what? If you get a right wing Judge, an Unreasonable Search might never exist. If you get a left wing judge, no search is ever reasonable. And those individual rulings would stand, unchallengeable. There being no where to take the question for an answer for a standardized opinion applicable for all.

So a point where the final binding answer would be found was needed. A point where the Constituional prohibition against Congress passing a law prohibiting would be enforced. Do I agree with all their decisions? No. But I voted for Gore, and shouted Coward at the computer when Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform law. Why?

Bush signed it and said he believed it was Unconstitutional. If he honestly believed it. He should not have passed the buck to the Supreme Court. But he did. I don’t have to agree with your stated beliefs, but I can admire someone who stands by those I don’t agree with. I did not agree with Alan Colmes on many issues. But I respected him tremendously. I respected him because he was consistent in his views no matter if it was the left or right doing the dumb and previously disapproved thing. He did not castigate the Right for doing things while giving the left a pass. I respected that.

Like the Ten Commandments, the Bill of Rights was intended to be a guide, a general principle we could all agree upon. The problem is, we all define those things differently. Many people believe that there is no such thing as cruel and unusual. Any punishment the baddie gets is not only warranted, but totally acceptable. The Rack is too good for them.

On the other hand, there are those who think any incarceration is cruel and unusual. Would you like that decision made on a case by case basis with only the whim of the Judge as the deciding factor? I mean, you could go into court for a traffic ticket and be sentenced to hard labor for months or years, because the Judge didn’t get any the night before, and no where could you appeal that ruling as inappropriate to the crime.

One was not provided, and one was desperately needed. Congress accepted it when they did not legislate a fix.

"There had to be a point where someone decided what the law meant, or how the Constitution would be applied."

Applied???
The Constitution is written in English.

The intention was for a Supreme Court to show how the languge of the Constitution either allowed a law, or did not.

If not....the Supreme Court has no business adjudicating....and the state courts had that right. That's federalism.




"...decision made on a case by case basis with only the whim of the Judge as the deciding factor?"
That's the situation we have currently.



Elected executives should simply overrule any Supreme Court decision not consistent with the will of the people:
Where does the Constitution state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word?????



“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “f the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



It is well past time to rein in this loose cannon.

Again, yes, it was sort of needed. Let’s take an easy one. Miranda. Prior to Miranda, we had the right to remain silent. Since Miranda, not so much, but we can get to that in a moment. Miranda created a right. That right that was created, was the duty of police, when questioning someone, to inform that person that they did in fact have the rights to an attorney, and to remain silent. Yes, we had that right before, but given the quality of education through history, people either may not know about it, or refuse to allow it.

Even today, those rights are denied people. The right to remain silent, or to stop answering questions at any time. Now, that right is proof of your guilt. SCOTUS ruling: Silence can be evidence as guilt

I disagree with that. It could also be that the decision to stop answering questions is the realization that the police are trying to make it look like you are guilty. The the right to an attorney has also been shat upon. The Supreme Court deciding that the defendant asking for a “Lawyer Dog.” Was not the use of the word Dog as man, dude, pal, buddy or whatever. But instead the literal request of a canine who was admitted to the BAR.

Those cases should have been decided the other way. But as Miranda established a new right, most cases erode your existing rights. The exceptions to the rights, the unreasonable search and seizure definition.

Without that adjudication ability however, then what those terms mean differs from court to court, judge to judge, and person to person. Imagine the state of American Police without clear examples of what is allowed, and what is not. In one case, the police can conduct a search for a weapon and find something else, and have the evidence admitted, in the next case, nearly identical, the search would be thrown out.

In one case the trial Judge decides that because the police told you that you could not leave you were merely detained while they asked questions for a report. You were not under arrest, so you were not entitled to the rights including to remain silent. In the next court room over, the police essentially placed you under arrest when the blue lights came on to stop you for failure to signal a lane change. The first words out of the officers mouth should have been to inform the defendant that he was under arrest. In the very next court room, a case is thrown out because the police arrested a man for a crime, but he was not indicted for that crime by a Grand Jury before hand.

So to adjudicate those cases you have to create rights in the effort to protect the existing rights. Where do property rights end? Do I have a right to burn toxic chemicals on my property? Does the government have the right to tell me not to do it? Without those rights established, or yet another exception, I wouldn’t know, and neither would you.

As for me, I believe the exceptions to the clearly stated rights should be few, and extreme. The right to freedom of speech should trump everything except perhaps immediate public danger, the classic yelling fire in the theater scenario. Cruel and Unusual should trump everything including the stupid assed ticking time bomb scenario.

The silence as an admission of guilt should never have been allowed. Otherwise the police could just stand there shouting various crimes at you, and your inability to answer them all would be an admission of guilt. Then again, I believe that a lot of things that are allowed as exceptions, should never have been.