Let the tyranny begin

[no1tovote4]

This is a novel topic, one which has not been expressly addressed by congress or scotus, as far as I know.

As I understand it, since congress had authority to grant jurisdiction to lower federal courts, they also have the power to strip this jurisdiction, in effect, but not really, overturning a lower federal court ruling. Some say that this is an erosion of the seperate powers, however, the other camp says this is congress's unexercised power, in that, if they have the authority to create, well, then their law must reign supreme. (sheesh, I think I got reign supreme from Iron Chef, I am dooommmmed).

Good question though.

Congress does not have the authority to assign the Jurisdiction to themselves. While they can give or take the Jurisdiction from courts by Bills, they cannot assign that Jurisdiction to themselves, they are not of the Judiciary which is the only place that Jurisdiction can reside.

 

[no1tovote4]

Oh, and part of the Checks and Balances would be a Constitutional Amendment giving them such authority. Until such an Amendment passes, Congress does not have the ability to make Judgements or to assign Jurisdiction to somebody other than the Courts. This is essentially a short-cirtuit of the Amendments process. If they overrule the Court on a constitutional question they themselves have Amended the Constitution without it going through the States as per the Constitution.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

The Judge was elected to office, when it was investigated who gave him the money the ACLU and several DNC organizations donated the money. I don't think that this Judge is really a Republican. He may be registered as such, but I don't think from the people who support him that he truly is Republican, more likely a RINO.

Now, considering that the people of florida elected him, aren't they to be held accountable for their inability to dig into his support? In other words, they made their bed, now they should lie in it?

Also this law was put forward long before the Schiavo decisions and therefore this is not likely fallout from that, unless you suggest that Congress is Psychic.

correct, this just exacerbates the issue.

There also is the fact that on average Republicans would not support an "activist" judge, since maybe only one or two RINOs like this Judge might get past it would not reflect the approval one way or the other.

but republicans DO support activist judges, they just call them intellectual oppositionists or some other such horseshit label.

 

[no1tovote4]

but republicans DO support activist judges, they just call them intellectual oppositionists or some other such horseshit label.

Don't they call them Strict Constitutionalists?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Don't they call them Strict Constitutionalists?

that label would apply to the GOOD judges on both sides, both sides have and support their activists.

 

[no1tovote4]

I still think that this is an end-run attempt at the Amendment process. If the Congress didn't like a decision on the Constitutionality of a law they could, with a 2/3 vote, overturn the ruling and Amend the Constitution without any ratification from the States. This removes power from the States on a wholesale basis, I can't believe that any Republican or Libertarian could support such an action. It is inherently against all that the Parties stand for.

 

[Avatar4321]

As I understand it, justices can be tried for crimes, right? so they are not completely unnacountable in that respect.

As far as interpreting things go, that truly is their job, to interpret the laws as written or the constitution. Some do it better than others for sure...but there it is.

And as I said earlier above, the judiciary is appointed by our elected reps, therefore we should hold our reps accountable for who they nominate, shouldn't we?

Justices can make bad decisions without doing anything illegal. Look at Roe v Wade for example.

 

[freeandfun1]

Thought this might be helpful to those, such as myself, that have questions about how the "Checks and Balances" of our system works....

Constitutional Topic: Checks and Balances
The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page concerns Constitutional Checks and Balances. The entire Constitution, especially Articles 1, 2, and 3.

Source material for this topic page include the Constitution, Government by the People by James Burns, J.W. Peltason, and Thomas Cronin (Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984), and Constitutional Law by Daniel Hall (Lawyers Cooperative Publishing, Albany, NY, 1997).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The American constitutional system includes a notion known as the Separation of Powers. In this system, several branches of government are created and power is shared between them. At the same time, the powers of one branch can be challenged by another branch. This is what the system of checks and balances is all about.

There are three branches in the United States government as established by the Constitution. First, the Legislative branch makes the law. Second, the Executive branch executes the law. Last, the Judicial branch interprets the law. Each branch has an effect on the other.

Legislative Branch
Checks on the Executive
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
May override Presidential vetoes
Senate approves departmental appointments
Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
Approval of replacement Vice President
Power to declare war
Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
Checks on the Judiciary
Senate approves federal judges
Impeachment power (House)
Trial of impeachments (Senate)
Power to initiate constitutional amendments
Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
Power to set jurisdiction of courts
Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
Checks on the Legislature - because it is bicameral, the Legislative branch has a degree of self-checking.
Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
House must originate revenue bills
Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
All journals are to be published

Executive Branch
Checks on the Legislature
Veto power
Vice President is President of the Senate
Commander in chief of the military
Recess appointments
Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Judiciary
Power to appoint judges
Pardon power
Checks on the Executive
Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties

Judicial Branch
Checks on the Legislature
Judicial review
Seats are held on good behavior
Compensation cannot be diminished
Checks on the Executive
Judicial review
Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Justices can make bad decisions without doing anything illegal. Look at Roe v Wade for example.

so, in essence, we're going to hold the judiciary to a higher standard than our own executive or legislative branches?

we MUST remember, these judges are in their positions because the people WE ELECTED put them there. WE are to blame for this more so than anything else.

I see nothing 'out of control' with the judiciary.

 

[insein]

Right problem, wrong approach. Sure the major courts including the highest has been subject to questionable decisions in the last 30 years but to allow congress the right to change their rulings simply swings the pendulum back to far.

What congress needs to pass is a law that holds judges accountable for questionable decisions. Leave higher courts to decide whether the decision just or not. Allowing these lifetime appointed judges to legislate from the bench is the problem. The ability to remove a judge for incompetance is what i think should be the case here.

 

[insein]

so, in essence, we're going to hold the judiciary to a higher standard than our own executive or legislative branches?

we MUST remember, these judges are in their positions because the people WE ELECTED put them there. WE are to blame for this more so than anything else.

I see nothing 'out of control' with the judiciary.

We elect officials. Officials as you know do not do everything we would like of them. We choose them because they generally believe in what we believe. If they differ on a certain topic though, then their opinion of a judge is different from ours. therefore we DONT elect judges even indirectly.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

We elect officials. Officials as you know do not do everything we would like of them. We choose them because they generally believe in what we believe. If they differ on a certain topic though, then their opinion of a judge is different from ours. therefore we DONT elect judges even indirectly.

i have to completely disagree. the president nominates judges, right?
the senate then debates, advises and consents, and either confirms or denies the seat, right?
now, if theres a judge that we the people do not believe is a good judge, do we write our senators? I damn sure do. If the senators confirm a judge that turns out to be a freaky ideologue, would you let that senator confirm another idiot judge by re-electing him? obviously we do or kennedy would have lost a long time ago.

 

[theim]

For all of you against the Congress having any say over the courts, can you please answer these questions? They are being asked in all seriousness, not just to argue.

If the Congress cannot control the courts, then who does? Are the courts the only branch of government that has no checks or balances? Should they really be allowed to run roughshod over the will of the people? Who are they accountable to? These are all serious questions. Why is it that nobody seems to think that the courts can't get out of control and impose tyranny?

I agree. I think way too many people hear a judge speak and act as if they have just heard the Voice of God.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Why is it that nobody seems to think that the courts can't get out of control and impose tyranny?

the process is amending the constitution. If the courts try to impose power that doesn't belong to them, they get overridden by the will of the people. If the house, senate, and the states want something to be, then by 2/3 rds of all, they make an amendment. thats one way at least.

 

[freeandfun1]

the process is amending the constitution. If the courts try to impose power that doesn't belong to them, they get overridden by the will of the people. If the house, senate, and the states want something to be, then by 2/3 rds of all, they make an amendment. thats one way at least.

True, but if the courts are in cahoots with a party, say the democrats for example, by the time the "will of the people" could be exercised - through elections, it might just be too late. Who controls the courts until the people have a chance to voice their desires through elections? Things move too fast these days and the wrong mixture of party politics and the courts could (and is in my opinion) send us down a road that will be difficult and long in recovering from.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

True, but if the courts are in cahoots with a party, say the democrats for example, by the time the "will of the people" could be exercised - through elections, it might just be too late. Who controls the courts until the people have a chance to voice their desires through elections? Things move too fast these days and the wrong mixture of party politics and the courts could (and is in my opinion) send us down a road that will be difficult and long in recovering from.

so, if we (the people) need to be concerned about giving any party too much power via the 3 branches, why do most people go along party lines when it comes to justice nominations? And I'd really like to hear honest answers instead of the same rhetoric about how republicans don't choose activist judges... :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

 

[freeandfun1]

so, if we (the people) need to be concerned about giving any party too much power via the 3 branches, why do most people go along party lines when it comes to justice nominations? And I'd really like to hear honest answers instead of the same rhetoric about how republicans don't choose activist judges... :blah2: :blah2: :blah2:

Unlike you, I am not trying to be confrontational about this or prove that I am right and your are wrong or anything like that. I am presenting HONEST questions that I don't have the answers to. And as far as justice nominations.... I am not sure what you are getting at. I don't nominate judges and neither do you. The congress does.

And we should be concerned. Origianlly when our system was established, Judges were supposed to be INDEPENDENT and not swayed by party politics. They are today (both sides) so how do we stop this or prevent this? That is all I am asking. How do we MAKE the judiciary return to its original function?

 

[5stringJeff]

the process is amending the constitution. If the courts try to impose power that doesn't belong to them, they get overridden by the will of the people. If the house, senate, and the states want something to be, then by 2/3 rds of all, they make an amendment. thats one way at least.

You assume, wrongly IMO, that a judge's decision carries the weight of the Constitution.

 

[no1tovote4]

You assume, wrongly IMO, that a judge's decision carries the weight of the Constitution.

The SCOTUS does, this would allow Congress to overturn a ruling on the Constitution thus Amending the Constitution without State Ratification. This is simply wrong in every way.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Unlike you, I am not trying to be confrontational about this or prove that I am right and your are wrong or anything like that. I am presenting HONEST questions that I don't have the answers to.

please understand, i'm not trying to be confrontational. I'm quite perturbed about a very serious issue and tired of hearing only party spin and rhetoric from both sides.

And as far as justice nominations.... I am not sure what you are getting at. I don't nominate judges and neither do you. The congress does

But we do pay the senate and the congress to do our will. thats what i'm getting at. maybe its not that big of an issue then and i'm being over-reactionary.

And we should be concerned. Origianlly when our system was established, Judges were supposed to be INDEPENDENT and not swayed by party politics. They are today (both sides) so how do we stop this or prevent this? That is all I am asking. How do we MAKE the judiciary return to its original function?

my idea, would be to hold the senate responsible for who they vote in. We should ALL read up on all the judges that are nominated so we can have an informed opinion, but that might be asking too much of the serious partisan fringe groups.