How to reform the Supreme Court

[eflatminor]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

already have the power.

Juries Are Allowed To Judge The Law, Not Just The Facts

the supreme court is not the highest court of the land

the people are.

Your link is about JURY nullification, of which I'm a big fan. It is indeed a powerful tool in the fight against tyranny and unjust laws.

But you miss the point: There is no jury when the Supreme Court renders a decision.

Sorry, but your link has no bearing on my point.

but you know how it is with all that xbox and nintendo competition

If that was your attempt to be snarky, you've failed miserably.

 

[dcraelin]

Correct.

You’re advocating eliminating the rule of law, you just don’t understand that.

Term limits, mandatory retirement, and pulling names out of a hat are all punitive measures designed to intimidate and compel the justices to rule in a manner consistent with popular (partisan) opinion, not Constitutional jurisprudence. Your proposal will make the Supreme Court more political, not less.

Moreover, pulling names out of a hat violates Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution investing in the president the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and undermines the indirect democracy inherent in the Electoral College process.

Last, the justices do not simply convene and conjure decisions out of thin air, predicated solely on their personal, partisan, or subjective perceptions of a given issue; rather, they rule based on established, settled, and accepted case law, and are presumed to do so in good faith. They cannot be expected to make their deliberations indeed in good faith subject to the prospect of term limits, mandatory retirement, or a hat full of jurists’ names.

they are NOT designed to intimidate justices, they're designed to get non-partisan, non-political-hack, justices. To lessen chances of having senile judges.

Now as I read the Articles, they could (but would not have to) have a new batch of judges for every case. My view is you would only use the process when an opening came up...just as done now.

 

[hangover]

It would take an amendment to the constitution to reform the Supreme Court, and congress can't even pass a budget.

And the Supreme Court is in no need of ‘reforming.’

This is the height of ignorance, not to mention undemocratic and un-American. It's eleven un-elected anointed rulers for life, deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

When they made money speech and corporations people, they should have been committed to the funny farm.

Actually it's 9 not 11, so who's speaking form a position of ignorance?

Ouch! you got me! What a great excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure you loved the SCOTUS anointing Shrub King of the U.S. But you probably resent Obama being the "decider" now, huh.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Correct.

You’re advocating eliminating the rule of law, you just don’t understand that.

Term limits, mandatory retirement, and pulling names out of a hat are all punitive measures designed to intimidate and compel the justices to rule in a manner consistent with popular (partisan) opinion, not Constitutional jurisprudence. Your proposal will make the Supreme Court more political, not less.

Moreover, pulling names out of a hat violates Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution investing in the president the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and undermines the indirect democracy inherent in the Electoral College process.

Last, the justices do not simply convene and conjure decisions out of thin air, predicated solely on their personal, partisan, or subjective perceptions of a given issue; rather, they rule based on established, settled, and accepted case law, and are presumed to do so in good faith. They cannot be expected to make their deliberations indeed in good faith subject to the prospect of term limits, mandatory retirement, or a hat full of jurists’ names.

they are NOT designed to intimidate justices, they're designed to get non-partisan, non-political-hack, justices. To lessen chances of having senile judges.

Now as I read the Articles, they could (but would not have to) have a new batch of judges for every case. My view is you would only use the process when an opening came up...just as done now.

Of course term limits and the like are designed to intimidate justices. A justice rules in a manner you disagree with and suddenly he’s ‘senile.’

And what criteria are you using to determine whether or not a given justice is a ‘partisan’ or a ‘political hack’? Pulling names out of a hat will prevent neither.

You’re contriving a ‘solution’ in search of a problem, as again the Court is in no need of ‘reform.’

 

[boilermaker55]

If you are trying to say that the multi billionaires and the extremely large corporations will not influence elections I dare say you are sadly mistaken. I wish, of course, you were correct. But the way politics is played now and in the past, money talks well and has a big voice. To big.
And changing the rules how they have with citizens united and how the gerrymandering works to benefit the far right wing, do not be surprised that the next elections go republican.
This is not a gloom and doom comment but my trust in what the ultra rich can and will do never amazes me any more. This is their play ground. Politics that is.

Let us not try to underestimate the extreme right wing of this country. Never would or should it have been possible to have something such as citizen united get put into affect.
Even now the teaparty movement, as it looses membership, is still strong because of the unlimited amount of contributions multi - billionaires and corporations can make to a candidate. That is the path upon which they will operate and be successful, unless their is some vigilance to keeping the other party strong.
So, gerrymandering is something they would be able to somehow figure to keep in their favor.

Gerrymandered districts for a majority will last less three more presidential elections.

The darkening, youthful growing, technological forward looking anti-racist and anti-sexist generations will turn the House blue for generations.

$$$ interests would have to bribe the target generations. Since those generations' interests are not of the far right, the $$$ would ahve to go to the targets' interests.

Guess what.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you are trying to say that the multi billionaires and the extremely large corporations will not influence elections I dare say you are sadly mistaken. I wish, of course, you were correct. But the way politics is played now and in the past, money talks well and has a big voice. To big.
And changing the rules how they have with citizens united and how the gerrymandering works to benefit the far right wing, do not be surprised that the next elections go republican.
This is not a gloom and doom comment but my trust in what the ultra rich can and will do never amazes me any more. This is their play ground. Politics that is.

Let us not try to underestimate the extreme right wing of this country. Never would or should it have been possible to have something such as citizen united get put into affect.
Even now the teaparty movement, as it looses membership, is still strong because of the unlimited amount of contributions multi - billionaires and corporations can make to a candidate. That is the path upon which they will operate and be successful, unless their is some vigilance to keeping the other party strong.
So, gerrymandering is something they would be able to somehow figure to keep in their favor.

$$$ interests would have to bribe the target generations. Since those generations' interests are not of the far right, the $$$ would have to go to the targets' interests.

Guess what.

Read it again.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Im not sure your entirely correct on this either, will have to look back but regardless I believe the method outlined takes alot of the politics out of the process making for a fairer court.



It would have to be an amendment

"elimination of the rule of law"?!!!! talk about over the top and ignorant...Im merely suggesting an alternative that has worked before.




Yeeeas I do realize that

Correct.

You’re advocating eliminating the rule of law, you just don’t understand that.

Term limits, mandatory retirement, and pulling names out of a hat are all punitive measures designed to intimidate and compel the justices to rule in a manner consistent with popular (partisan) opinion, not Constitutional jurisprudence. Your proposal will make the Supreme Court more political, not less.

Moreover, pulling names out of a hat violates Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution investing in the president the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and undermines the indirect democracy inherent in the Electoral College process.

Last, the justices do not simply convene and conjure decisions out of thin air, predicated solely on their personal, partisan, or subjective perceptions of a given issue; rather, they rule based on established, settled, and accepted case law, and are presumed to do so in good faith. They cannot be expected to make their deliberations indeed in good faith subject to the prospect of term limits, mandatory retirement, or a hat full of jurists’ names.

So tell me, where in this constitutional jurisprudence do they get the authority rename a penalty a tax and in doing so creating a new unconstitutional direct tax? Please cite that case law.

Read the text of the decision, OKTexas. The onus is on you, not anyone else, to prove your point.

The point is that you don't like what happened, and that means nothing.

 

[legaleagle_45]

already have the power.

Juries Are Allowed To Judge The Law, Not Just The Facts

Not quite. Although jury nullification is powerful in criminal proceedings in that an acquittal will bar further prosecution, a conviction can be appealed --- thereby reversing a determination made by the jury. This happens all the time. Additionally, issues of law in civil matters are subject to appeal and even issues of fact can be reversed by an appellate court based on an NOV standard... which is specifically allowed by the 7th amend.

the supreme court is not the highest court of the land

Incorrect.

the people are.

The people are not a "court"

1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that the jury has an "unreviewable and unreversible power... to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge..." (US vs Dougherty, 473 F 2d 1113, 1139 (1972)).

Yep, the jury has a very strong power to acquit in a criminal trials. Their power to convict is reviewable and reversible in criminal cases and the power in civil cases is subject to many more exceptions and there are many actions in which a trial by jury is unavailable in civil matters... all in accordance with the 7th amend.

Every case regardless if it is a parking ticket (unless its under 20 dollars) needs to be decided by jury and jury only across the board.

Incorrect. The 7th only applies to "suits at common law" which is to be distinguished from suits in equity and suits in admiralty, where there is no right to a jury trial as these are not "suits at common law". Further, the 7th has not been incorporated. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 64-65 (1947) (Justice Frankfurter concurring). See Minneapolis & St. L. R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).

summary judgment allows judges to use their "discretionary" powers

Incorrect. Summary judgment is not available in criminal cases, so half of your wish is granted. However, it is not "discretionary" and the grant or refusal to grant summary judgment is appealable via de novo review and the appeals court does not employ the "abuse of discretion" standard of review.

 

[KokomoJojo]

already have the power.

Juries Are Allowed To Judge The Law, Not Just The Facts

Not quite. Although jury nullification is powerful in criminal proceedings in that an acquittal will bar further prosecution, a conviction can be appealed --- thereby reversing a determination made by the jury. This happens all the time. Additionally, issues of law in civil matters are subject to appeal and even issues of fact can be reversed by an appellate court based on an NOV standard... which is specifically allowed by the 7th amend.

the supreme court is not the highest court of the land

Incorrect.



The people are not a "court"



Yep, the jury has a very strong power to acquit in a criminal trials. Their power to convict is reviewable and reversible in criminal cases and the power in civil cases is subject to many more exceptions and there are many actions in which a trial by jury is unavailable in civil matters... all in accordance with the 7th amend.

Every case regardless if it is a parking ticket (unless its under 20 dollars) needs to be decided by jury and jury only across the board.

Incorrect. The 7th only applies to "suits at common law" which is to be distinguished from suits in equity and suits in admiralty, where there is no right to a jury trial as these are not "suits at common law". Further, the 7th has not been incorporated. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 64-65 (1947) (Justice Frankfurter concurring). See Minneapolis & St. L. R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).

summary judgment allows judges to use their "discretionary" powers

Incorrect. Summary judgment is not available in criminal cases, so half of your wish is granted. However, it is not "discretionary" and the grant or refusal to grant summary judgment is appealable via de novo review and the appeals court does not employ the "abuse of discretion" standard of review.

ah so Judges rule the country then not the people, thank for that admission.

and cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

in a court of record, a trial by jury, the jury is in fact the court.

No not in accordance with the seventh amendment, which constitution you dreaming that up from, surely not the us constitution?

I did not qualify the summary judgment statement. yes in your example (defacto) appeal-able again to state judges


My statements stand correct.

again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

.

 

[dcraelin]

Correct.

You’re advocating eliminating the rule of law, you just don’t understand that.

Term limits, mandatory retirement, and pulling names out of a hat are all punitive measures designed to intimidate and compel the justices to rule in a manner consistent with popular (partisan) opinion, not Constitutional jurisprudence. Your proposal will make the Supreme Court more political, not less.

Moreover, pulling names out of a hat violates Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution investing in the president the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and undermines the indirect democracy inherent in the Electoral College process.

Last, the justices do not simply convene and conjure decisions out of thin air, predicated solely on their personal, partisan, or subjective perceptions of a given issue; rather, they rule based on established, settled, and accepted case law, and are presumed to do so in good faith. They cannot be expected to make their deliberations indeed in good faith subject to the prospect of term limits, mandatory retirement, or a hat full of jurists’ names.

they are NOT designed to intimidate justices, they're designed to get non-partisan, non-political-hack, justices. To lessen chances of having senile judges.

Now as I read the Articles, they could (but would not have to) have a new batch of judges for every case. My view is you would only use the process when an opening came up...just as done now.

Of course term limits and the like are designed to intimidate justices. A justice rules in a manner you disagree with and suddenly he’s ‘senile.’

And what criteria are you using to determine whether or not a given justice is a ‘partisan’ or a ‘political hack’? Pulling names out of a hat will prevent neither.

You’re contriving a ‘solution’ in search of a problem, as again the Court is in no need of ‘reform.’

your not making any sense. How do term limits intimidate judges? They would be applied equally to every judge not depending on any specific outcome. .....I didnt say any particular judge was senile.

Judges are appointed by politicians. You cant see how choosing them by lot would be less political???? you are blind.

I disagree with both the KELO ruling...mostly "liberal" judges....and I disagree with Citizens United...mostly"conservative" judges...the court is badly in need of reform

 

[KokomoJojo]

they are NOT designed to intimidate justices, they're designed to get non-partisan, non-political-hack, justices. To lessen chances of having senile judges.

Now as I read the Articles, they could (but would not have to) have a new batch of judges for every case. My view is you would only use the process when an opening came up...just as done now.

Of course term limits and the like are designed to intimidate justices. A justice rules in a manner you disagree with and suddenly he’s ‘senile.’

And what criteria are you using to determine whether or not a given justice is a ‘partisan’ or a ‘political hack’? Pulling names out of a hat will prevent neither.

You’re contriving a ‘solution’ in search of a problem, as again the Court is in no need of ‘reform.’

your not making any sense. How do term limits intimidate judges? They would be applied equally to every judge not depending on any specific outcome. .....I didnt say any particular judge was senile.

Judges are appointed by politicians. You cant see how choosing them by lot would be less political???? you are blind.

I disagree with both the KELO ruling...mostly "liberal" judges....and I disagree with Citizens United...mostly"conservative" judges...the court is badly in need of reform

US courts, the whole judicial system, in collusion with legislative agencies today are not much more than rubber stamp RICO extortion rackets.

Like cancer they gnaw away at their victims (the inhabitants) over a long period of time.

 

[legaleagle_45]

ah so Judges rule the country then not the people, thank for that admission.

No such admission made so your assertion is fraudulent.

and cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion is absurd.

in a trial by jury the jury is in fact the court.

Incorrect.

No not in accordance with the seventh amendment, which constitution you dreaming that up from, surely not the us constitution?

Indeed the US constitution. Which 7th Amend are you talking about?

I did not qualify the summary judgment statement. yes in your example (defacto) appeal-able again to state judges.

Or federal judges. Thus admitting that the people are not the highest court. Thanks for your concession.

My statements stand correct.

LOL, your statements reveal that you know nothing of the law and further believe in whacky legal theories that if advanced in a court would result in a fine or contempt of court citation

again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

Since I made no such assertion your query is without foundation.

Query do you believe if a courtroom flag has a gold fringe around it, it will convert the court into a court of admiralty by some magical transformation and that a court of admiralty is a military court where you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

LOL

 

[OKTexas]

Correct.

You’re advocating eliminating the rule of law, you just don’t understand that.

Term limits, mandatory retirement, and pulling names out of a hat are all punitive measures designed to intimidate and compel the justices to rule in a manner consistent with popular (partisan) opinion, not Constitutional jurisprudence. Your proposal will make the Supreme Court more political, not less.

Moreover, pulling names out of a hat violates Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution investing in the president the authority to appoint justices to the Supreme Court, and undermines the indirect democracy inherent in the Electoral College process.

Last, the justices do not simply convene and conjure decisions out of thin air, predicated solely on their personal, partisan, or subjective perceptions of a given issue; rather, they rule based on established, settled, and accepted case law, and are presumed to do so in good faith. They cannot be expected to make their deliberations indeed in good faith subject to the prospect of term limits, mandatory retirement, or a hat full of jurists’ names.

So tell me, where in this constitutional jurisprudence do they get the authority rename a penalty a tax and in doing so creating a new unconstitutional direct tax? Please cite that case law.

Read the text of the decision, OKTexas. The onus is on you, not anyone else, to prove your point.

The point is that you don't like what happened, and that means nothing.

I have read the decision, I have a copy sitting right by my desk. that's why I asked the questions I did. Roberts twisted himself into a pretzel to redefine an unconstitutional penalty into a tax. Once this tax is collected it will be challenged on 3 basis. 1. The court doesn't have the authority to enter into the legislative arena and rewrite legislation. 2. This tax is punitive, so by it's very definition is a penalty as congress stated in the first place. 3. The court established a new unconstitutional direct tax. Direct taxes are prohibited by the constitution, with one exception, income which is allowed under the 16th Amendment. This tax is not triggered by income, but by a failure to enter into commerce, which is unique in American history. Ok, jakey prove me wrong.

 

[legaleagle_45]

US courts, the whole judicial system, in collusion with legislative agencies today are not much more than rubber stamp RICO extortion rackets.

Like cancer they gnaw away at their victims (the inhabitants) over a long period of time.

You are free to seek to change that. The methodology is found in Article V of the Constitution. First you must convince 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate. to propose such an amendment to the states. Then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify the proposal. Rather simple procedure actually. Good luck

 

[KokomoJojo]

ah so Judges rule the country then not the people, thank for that admission.

No such admission made so your assertion is fraudulent.

and cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion is absurd.



Incorrect.



Indeed the US constitution. Which 7th Amend are you talking about?



Or federal judges. Thus admitting that the people are not the highest court. Thanks for your concession.

My statements stand correct.

LOL, your statements reveal that you know nothing of the law and further believe in whacky legal theories that if advanced in a court would result in a fine or contempt of court citation

again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

Since I made no such assertion your query is without foundation.

Query do you believe if a courtroom flag has a gold fringe around it, it will convert the court into a court of admiralty by some magical transformation and that a court of admiralty is a military court where you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

LOL

and cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion is absurd.

So then the inhabitants according to you simply bent over and begged for that red white and blue dick up their asses is that it?

Again cite where the inhabitants of this country relenquished their right to determine the law in which they live under.

....and all statutory law of the police state MUST be constructed within the constraints of the common law, which is impossible, and generally administratively prejudices one group in favor for another, but it sounds good anyway.

Indeed the US constitution. Which 7th Amend are you talking about?

Your cases:
Incorrect. The 7th only applies to "suits at common law" which is to be distinguished from suits in equity and suits in admiralty, where there is no right to a jury trial as these are not "suits at common law". Further, the 7th has not been incorporated. Adamson v. California, 332 U.S. 46, 64-65 (1947) (Justice Frankfurter concurring). See Minneapolis & St. L. R.R. v. Bombolis, 241 U.S. 211 (1916).

The above cases only prove that equity has been used to usurp the will of the people by legal deception and cherry picking sections of the constitution that serves their ends NOT the ends of the people.

Or federal judges. Thus admitting that the people are not the highest court. Thanks for your concession.

A COURT NOT OF THE INHABITANTS IS NOT AN ADMISSION!!!

That is nothing more than foolish circular reasoning!!!

My statements stand correct.

LOL, your statements reveal that you know nothing of the law and further believe in whacky legal theories that if advanced in a court would result in a fine or contempt of court citation

Contrare they prove the inhabitants of this nation have been screwed glued and tattooed by the just-us BAR club.

If my statements would result in a contempt of court charge then we have a problem in dodge and we in fact do not have the right to petition AND RELIEF and in fact are under duress.

again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

Since I made no such assertion your query is without foundation.

You made the assertion by stating that the black robe priests sitting on the bench are the final arbitor of law in this country.

Now you wanna play court do ya? Then you know or should know that any court must first prove the elements of its jurisdiction, and simply plugging its ears as you seem to have admitted is not proving its jurisdiction now is it.

So again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?


Query do you believe if a courtroom flag has a gold fringe around it, it will convert the court into a court of admiralty by some magical transformation and that a court of admiralty is a military court where you are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice?

I dont give a fuck if there is a russian flag up there, its completely irrelevant.

since you are the leego beego why dont you tell us what determines the nature of the court?

ah so Judges rule the country then not the people, thank for that admission.

No such admission made so your assertion is fraudulent.

Your statement, if correct, proves the final say so of what goes on in this country as our governing law is NOT within the jurisdiction and venue of the jury, hence NOT the WILL of the inhabitants forced to live under it.


So again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

 

[KokomoJojo]

US courts, the whole judicial system, in collusion with legislative agencies today are not much more than rubber stamp RICO extortion rackets.

Like cancer they gnaw away at their victims (the inhabitants) over a long period of time.

You are free to seek to change that. The methodology is found in Article V of the Constitution. First you must convince 2/3rds of the US House and 2/3rds of the US Senate. to propose such an amendment to the states. Then all you need do is convince 38 states to ratify the proposal. Rather simple procedure actually. Good luck

Seek change? In the law?

Why would anyone change what was never there?

The problem is not the law its bullshit judicial construction of the law by the Just-Us BAR club.

It seems the organic law would only need to be enforced and pulled out of the hands of the usurpers not changed eh..... then put into the hands of the inhabitants (JURY) who presumably consent to live under it!

The will of the inhabitants that must live under said laws can only be changed by the JURY in this system of government!

Politicians have absolutely no obligation to vote on behalf of their constituents!

Everything you have provided so far proves rule by conquest NOT consent!


and as one of the inhabitants required to pay the bills you must have had the opportunity to vote by referendum for ohaha care right!

 

[legaleagle_45]

So then the inhabitants according to you simply bent over and begged for that red white and blue dick up their asses is that it?
Again cite where the inhabitants of this country relenquished their right to determine the law in which they live under.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

The above cases only prove that equity has been used to usurp the will of the people by legal deception and cherry picking sections of the constitution that serves their ends NOT the ends of the people.

Incorrect, since that was clearly the intent of the 7th amendment which incorporated a long standing distinction in English law, which provided for a right to jury in suits at common law but not in suits at equity or admiralty. See, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England , Book the Third - Chapter the Fourth : Of the Public Courts of Common Law and Equity. The fact that you are ignorant of this distinction is amusing but not surprising. You think that the 7th employed the words "at common law" for the fun of it?

A COURT NOT OF THE INHABITANTS IS NOT AN ADMISSION!!!

Sure it is... you admit that the court exercises this power over the jury, now you assert that the power is wrongfully exercised, but you admit that in fact the power is exercised. Just because you claim it is wrongful does not make it wrongful and you have cited no authority to establish otherwise. Thus, you are employing circular logic...

Contrare they prove the inhabitants of this nation have been screwed glued and tattooed by the just-us BAR club.

Well why don't you assert the phantom 13th amend, assert that the term "esquire" is a "title of nobility" and that thus all lawyers and judges can not be citizens or be employed by government. I am sure your credibility will be enhanced as everyone laughs at you

If my statements would result in a contempt of court charge then we have a problem in dodge and we in fact do not have the right to petition AND RELIEF and in fact are under duress.

Sure you have the right to petition, but you do not have the right to relief. The fact that it is under duress is irrelevant even if true. You are not allowed to assert whacky legal arguments in court. The fact that you do not think they are whacky is also irrelevant. Want me to cite cases where sanctions for making whacky legal arguments? In re Hale (Bankr. ED Ark 1996) 196 Bankr.Rptr 122 ("This legalistic gibberish has been so repeatedly and soundly dismissed that the courts no longer analyze each issue, unless imposing sanctions for filing such frivolous babble.") See also, In re contempt of Mittower (Ind.Supm 1998) 693 NE2d 555; Florida Bar v. Gordon (Fla.Supm 1995) 661 So.2d 295; In re Wm. Patton (ED Penn unpub 11/6/98). So why did these people not petition and receive relief? Merely because you claim a right to relief does not mean that you are entitled to relief.

You made the assertion by stating that the black robe priests sitting on the bench are the final arbitor of law in this country.

Nope I did not. We can remove that power through a Constitutional amend, so you lose.

Now you wanna play court do ya? Then you know or should know that any court must first prove the elements of its jurisdiction, and simply plugging its ears as you seem to have admitted is not proving its jurisdiction now is it.?

True enough but that is irrelevant to anything being discussed. Might as well say that chickens have feathers.

So again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests.

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

I dont give a fuck if there is a russian flag up there, its completely irrelevant.

Well at least you have not swallowed the whole bs whacky legal arguments. How about reliance upon the UCC as an immutable law applicable to everything? How about "constructive treason" or the law that never was?

since you are the leego beego why dont you tell us what determines the nature of the court?

Easy enough, the nature of the court is generally determined by statute as constrained by the constitution.

Your statement, if correct, proves the final say so of what goes on in this country as our governing law is NOT within the jurisdiction and venue of the jury, hence NOT the WILL of the inhabitants forced to live under it.

Incorrect, since the availability of constitutional amend is always available within or Constitution and the ultimate extra constitutional remedy of revolution is available as a last resort. Want to try again?

So again cite where the people relinquished their rights and handed it over to the black robe government priests?

Assuming facts not in evidence, thus your conclusion and thus your query is absurd.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Seek change? In the law?

Why would anyone change what was never there?

That is your claim. The US Supreme Court says you are wrong. I think I will believe the Supreme Court over the unsubstantiated claims of an anon internet poster.

The problem is not the law its bullshit judicial construction of the law by the Just-Us BAR club.

According to you. However, your legal expertise has been shown to be lacking.

It seems the organic law would only need to be enforced and pulled out of the hands of the usurpers not changed eh..... then put into the hands of the inhabitants (JURY) who presumably consent to live under it!

A jury has no legislative power.

The will of the inhabitants that must live under said laws can only be changed by the JURY in this system of government!

LOL, you believe that?

Politicians have absolutely no obligation to vote on behalf of their constituents!

Correct, and we have no obligation to vote for said politician and some states allow you to recall said politicians if we don't like them.

Everything you have provided so far proves rule by conquest NOT consent!

Incorrect. The mere fact that you believe otherwise does not make you correct.

and as one of the inhabitants required to pay the bills you must have had the opportunity to vote by referendum for ohaha care right!

Hmm..

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Nope, nowhere does it say anything about legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a jury and I do not see a darn thing about a referendum provision in the US Constitution. Perhaps you might wish to cite the specific language in the US Constitution which provides for referendum of the legislative acts of Congress?

 

[Ernie S.]

It would take an amendment to the constitution to reform the Supreme Court, and congress can't even pass a budget.


This is the height of ignorance, not to mention undemocratic and un-American. It's eleven un-elected anointed rulers for life, deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

When they made money speech and corporations people, they should have been committed to the funny farm.

Actually it's 9 not 11, so who's speaking form a position of ignorance?

Ouch! you got me! What a great excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure you loved the SCOTUS anointing Shrub King of the U.S. But you probably resent Obama being the "decider" now, huh.

Artie?

 

[OKTexas]

It would take an amendment to the constitution to reform the Supreme Court, and congress can't even pass a budget.


This is the height of ignorance, not to mention undemocratic and un-American. It's eleven un-elected anointed rulers for life, deciding what is constitutional and what isn't.

When they made money speech and corporations people, they should have been committed to the funny farm.

Actually it's 9 not 11, so who's speaking form a position of ignorance?

Ouch! you got me! What a great excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water. I'm sure you loved the SCOTUS anointing Shrub King of the U.S. But you probably resent Obama being the "decider" now, huh.

I guess you would have preferred they anoint the loser, every objective recount in FL proved Bush won. But hey if it makes you feel better keep chewing that shit sandwich.