Let the tyranny begin

SmarterThanYou said:
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.

The problem is, everybody thinks their party's judges are best. Just like everybody thinks their Senator is the best.

My point is that the system IS out of control and SOMETHING has to be done. If we follow your method, that will take TOO long and in the interim, we don't know how much damage will be done. I hate to say it, but this one problem alone could be what leads to our nation's downfall.

Again, the main point is how do we keep judges from being or becoming partisan hacks?
 
gop_jeff said:
You assume, wrongly IMO, that a judge's decision carries the weight of the Constitution.
hmmmm, didn't think I was doing that. then again, it sounds like we're referring to 'interpretations' of the constitution when it comes to court decisions. examples would be no death penalty for people under 18. I don't agree with that. I see nowhere in the constitution that this decision could be interpreted from. I'm sure there are other decisions that could be interpreted by you or I as unconstitutional as well.
 
gop_jeff said:
I think jurisdiction, depending on one's interpretation, could include the right to overturn decisions. And, considering that the Congress is elected and the judiciary is appointed, I would hardly call that tyranny.

But I do agree with you that the current bill is a bridge too far.

Jeff, you've got to stop hitting yourself in the head with that hammer. How on earth can you stretch the authority to set the venue to the authority to overturn a ruling? Maybe I'm just dense, but for the life of me I can't make that connection.

But this bill is patently unconstitutional because it would take an amendment to the Constitution to authorize Congress this power. The morons who sponsored it should be tossed out on their asses because they are as much the enemies of the Constitution and of our liberties as the idiots from the Equal Worth Amendment campaign who graced us with their presence recently.
 
no1tovote4 said:
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.

Um, ok. I only said that congress grants jurisdiction to lower federal courts. Thus, they can take away that jurisdiction. Further, the interpretation of the Constitution has changed over time without amendment by various pieces of legislation and judicial decisions. See US Constitution

This indicates that both branches can interpret the constitution and thus bring about changes in it. Which one controls?

Article. III.
Section. 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section. 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

It seems to me that the last sentence indicates that Congress controls other than for cases in which the US sct has original jurisdiction. The balancing act. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create federal courts other than the Supreme Court and to determine their jurisdiction. It is Congress, not the judiciary, that controls the type of cases that may be addressed in the federal courts. See Link

Overall, only the scotus has equal footing with the congress. However, this footing is also subject to the checks and balances, which there is not really a bright line rule for.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Jeff, you've got to stop hitting yourself in the head with that hammer. How on earth can you stretch the authority to set the venue to the authority to overturn a ruling? Maybe I'm just dense, but for the life of me I can't make that connection.

But this bill is patently unconstitutional because it would take an amendment to the Constitution to authorize Congress this power. The morons who sponsored it should be tossed out on their asses because they are as much the enemies of the Constitution and of our liberties as the idiots from the Equal Worth Amendment campaign who graced us with their presence recently.


Yeap.
 
Avatar4321 said:
Justices can make bad decisions without doing anything illegal. Look at Roe v Wade for example.

When a student comes into my office to dispute a question on an exam and claims that it is a "bad" or "trick" question, I tell them that simply because he did not know the answer does not invalidate the question.

Same thing with court decisions. Just because you or I do not agree with the decision does not, in and of itself, make that a "bad" decision.
 
Yurt said:
Um, ok. I only said that congress grants jurisdiction to lower federal courts. Thus, they can take away that jurisdiction. Further, the interpretation of the Constitution has changed over time without amendment by various pieces of legislation and judicial decisions. See US Constitution

This indicates that both branches can interpret the constitution and thus bring about changes in it. Which one controls?



It seems to me that the last sentence indicates that Congress controls other than for cases in which the US sct has original jurisdiction. The balancing act. Also, the Constitution gives Congress the power to create federal courts other than the Supreme Court and to determine their jurisdiction. It is Congress, not the judiciary, that controls the type of cases that may be addressed in the federal courts. See Link

The last sentence to which he alluded:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Overall, only the scotus has equal footing with the congress. However, this footing is also subject to the checks and balances, which there is not really a bright line rule for.

Congress can make Regulations that they must interpret, but they are the last decision making in appellate decisions per what you posted.

By attempting to make it so they can override the decisions they are making themselves the last appellate action that can be taken thus taking upon themselves a power that resides per the Constitution in the SCOTUS only.

They can make regulations such as:

the SCOTUS can only use the US Constitution and laws to base their decisions, this would make it so they could not look to International Laws in order to make their decisions as they did when deciding that noone under 18 can be executed. However by taking the power to overrule their decision they make themselves part of the Judiciary and take on the powers of two of the branches directly against what the constitution states.
 
Merlin1047 said:
Jeff, you've got to stop hitting yourself in the head with that hammer. How on earth can you stretch the authority to set the venue to the authority to overturn a ruling? Maybe I'm just dense, but for the life of me I can't make that connection.

But this bill is patently unconstitutional because it would take an amendment to the Constitution to authorize Congress this power. The morons who sponsored it should be tossed out on their asses because they are as much the enemies of the Constitution and of our liberties as the idiots from the Equal Worth Amendment campaign who graced us with their presence recently.

See Yurt's post right below yours. If Congress can regulate the lower courts, they could specifically issue a regulation/law that overturns a ruling.

However, we are in agreement that the original bill (which would overturn a SCOTUS ruling) is unconstitutional.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
hmmmm, didn't think I was doing that. then again, it sounds like we're referring to 'interpretations' of the constitution when it comes to court decisions. examples would be no death penalty for people under 18. I don't agree with that. I see nowhere in the constitution that this decision could be interpreted from. I'm sure there are other decisions that could be interpreted by you or I as unconstitutional as well.

I think one of the lost balances is the use of impeachment. Frankly, no1's suggestion about not using international law is a great one; Congress should pass that into law, and subsequently impeach any judge who does use international law in a ruling.
 
Merlin1047 said:
But this bill is patently unconstitutional because it would take an amendment to the Constitution to authorize Congress this power. The morons who sponsored it should be tossed out on their asses because they are as much the enemies of the Constitution and of our liberties as the idiots from the Equal Worth Amendment campaign who graced us with their presence recently.

I think that those that put up this bill were more about sending a loud and clear message to the the judiciary than believing it would ever pass.

Heck, if they actually passed the law, the judiciary would eventually find it unconstitutional. :rolleyes:
 
gop_jeff said:
See Yurt's post right below yours. If Congress can regulate the lower courts, they could specifically issue a regulation/law that overturns a ruling.

However, we are in agreement that the original bill (which would overturn a SCOTUS ruling) is unconstitutional.


They are specifically prohibited from doing this when considering crime and the sentencing of a person. The Presidents check is the Pardon, Congress cannot do this and are prohibited by the Constitution from doing so. They cannot make a law that is Unconstitutional and therefore the question of that would reside with the SCOTUS, if they decide it is Unconstitutional the Congress the law is struck down. If the Congress were to override that they are rewriting the Constitution without using the Amendment process and this is where they are in violation of the constitution. They cannot take on any of the powers of the Judiciary without an Amendment, no matter how the law is written.

This particular law would put two branches in the total Control of the Congress, this would be bad.

People are tending to forget here that the Dems may once again control the Congress and change the Constitution if this "law" were to go into effect.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top