Newt Gingrich correct on subpoenaing judges to appear before Congress.

[Inthemiddle]

Sure thing. Be glad to.

For Starters there is Article III, Sec 2 of our own Constitution: "...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.."

That allows the Congress to remove the USSC from the appeals process.

Article I, sec 8 allows Congress to establish inferior tribunals and in that process establish jurisdiction.

Here is a good laymans article that discusses the process. It also provides case law for those that place importance on that sort of thing. Jurisdiction stripping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hope this helps.

HA! You really are using too many SAT words that you don't understand. Jurisdictional limitations don't allow Congress from considering the constitutionality of a law. At best, Congress could pass a law that says jumping rope is illegal, and could pre-empt the courts from having jurisdiction from hearing rope jumping cases. That wouldn't prevent the courts from considering the constitutionality of the law, it would prevent the courts from hearing the cases in the first place. And that would make the law unenforceable. The courts have the inherent responsibility to consider constitutionality when the question is put before them, because judges are bound to follow and uphold the constitution.

 

[pegwinn]

The above absurdities are all based on the necessity of accepting the absolute premise that a particular conservative interpretation of the Constitution is the 'right' interpretation.

Very convenient if you're in that particular group of conservatives who agree with that premise.

Literal words. There can be no left or right, no right or wrong, if you simply read the words and apply them literally.

 

[JakeStarkey]

pegwinn is wrong. Better minds conclude differently.

 

[pegwinn]

If the legislature were sufficiently ticked off at the judges actions, they could ram through legislation that goes their way and includes a non-jurisdictional proviso that keeps the USSC from ruling on it.

If you're trying to suggest that Congress could pass a bill, and include a clause that said the courts cannot consider the constitutionality of the bill, you are completely wrong.

pegwinn is wrong. Better minds conclude differently.

Well that certainly looks like a positive assertion from my place at the table. That makes it yours to prove if someone should question it.

??????????????????????????????????????????????

Batter up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If the legislature were sufficiently ticked off at the judges actions, they could ram through legislation that goes their way and includes a non-jurisdictional proviso that keeps the USSC from ruling on it.

If you're trying to suggest that Congress could pass a bill, and include a clause that said the courts cannot consider the constitutionality of the bill, you are completely wrong.

pegwinn is wrong. Better minds conclude differently.

Well that certainly looks like a positive assertion from my place at the table. That makes it yours to prove if someone should question it.

??????????????????????????????????????????????

Batter up.

One does not have to disprove a claim for which no evidence has been presented. The lack of evidence itself proves that the claim has no basis.

My advice would be, don't dig yourself in any deeper than you already are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The above absurdities are all based on the necessity of accepting the absolute premise that a particular conservative interpretation of the Constitution is the 'right' interpretation.

Very convenient if you're in that particular group of conservatives who agree with that premise.

Literal words. There can be no left or right, no right or wrong, if you simply read the words and apply them literally.

What then would have been the Roe v Wade decision, if nothing other than words from the Constitution were applied 'literally'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why not just replace the Supreme Court with poor kids from the inner city,

working under one Master Judge?

lol

 

[pegwinn]

Sure thing. Be glad to.

For Starters there is Article III, Sec 2 of our own Constitution: "...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.."

That allows the Congress to remove the USSC from the appeals process.

Article I, sec 8 allows Congress to establish inferior tribunals and in that process establish jurisdiction.

Here is a good laymans article that discusses the process. It also provides case law for those that place importance on that sort of thing. Jurisdiction stripping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hope this helps.

HA! Glad you found it funny

You really are using too many SAT words that you don't understand. Um, No. But go ahead and keep telling yourself that if it helps to keep the boogyman at bay.

Jurisdictional limitations don't allow Congress from considering the constitutionality of a law. I think your wording here needs work. Care for a do-over?

At best, Congress could pass a law that says jumping rope is illegal, and could pre-empt the courts from having jurisdiction from hearing rope jumping cases. Hmmmmm, since my original literal words are right here in a convienient quote box let's see what they say.

If the legislature were sufficiently ticked off at the judges actions, they could ram through legislation that goes their way and includes a non-jurisdictional proviso that keeps the USSC from ruling on it.

Yeppers, It sure looks like that was said from the git go.

That wouldn't prevent the courts from considering the constitutionality of the law, it would prevent the courts from hearing the cases in the first place. Yeah, I think that's sort of the end result expected. And that would make the law unenforceable. The courts have the inherent responsibility to consider constitutionality when the question is put before them, because judges are bound to follow and uphold the constitution.

Question for you. I'm kinda old/new around these parts and so we haven't met. Do you always act like a dick and try to start fights with strangers who did nothing but answer a question? Or was yesterday a special occasion?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Seriously? The Congress can pass federal laws and exempt them from judicial scrutiny if the law is challenged in court?

Can you reference that, please?

I’d like to see that as well.

Otherwise the notion of dragging ‘liberal’ judges before a republican House committee remains a delusional – and un-Constitutional – fantasy.

This has nothing to do with dragging ‘liberal’ judges before a republican House committee. But it does have plenty to do with Congress’ authorized powers which is explained in POST 124. And I suggest you follow the link to Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), in which the court explains in detail Congressional oversight powers with reference to subpoenaing witnesses to testify to aid in Congress‘ legislative powers.

Hope that helps.

JWK

Are you going to tell me if judges should have been impeached for Roe v Wade?

Or if they got it wrong by finding rights for the unborn that don't exist in the Constitution?

Or did I miss that post?

 

[pegwinn]

The above absurdities are all based on the necessity of accepting the absolute premise that a particular conservative interpretation of the Constitution is the 'right' interpretation.

Very convenient if you're in that particular group of conservatives who agree with that premise.

Literal words. There can be no left or right, no right or wrong, if you simply read the words and apply them literally.

What then would have been the Roe v Wade decision, if nothing other than words from the Constitution were applied 'literally'.

Search me. I don't claim to've read Roe v Wade.

The discussion (in micro) was interpretation of the US Constitution. In my opinion, reading it literally is the best way to apply it. If you don't agree, don't pussyfoot around it. Make your case for how you think it ought to be.

 

[pegwinn]

One does not have to disprove a claim for which no evidence has been presented. The lack of evidence itself proves that the claim has no basis.

My advice would be, don't dig yourself in any deeper than you already are.

Big words from little people still sound squeaky.
I've provided linkage etc for what was originally an innocuous comment. But, since some people seem determined to endure a figurative ass kicking, I'm just playing the game they started.

Here are the options:

Prove me wrong: I've provided links. If you can prove me wrong then we all learn something.
Admit you are wrong: Again, I've provided links. If you read them and realise that 'holy shit he's right'...... and then say so, you gain good karma and great juju.
Walk away: You look like a punk for about eight seconds and then everyone moves on to the next thread.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seriously? The Congress can pass federal laws and exempt them from judicial scrutiny if the law is challenged in court?

Can you reference that, please?

I’d like to see that as well.

Otherwise the notion of dragging ‘liberal’ judges before a republican House committee remains a delusional – and un-Constitutional – fantasy.

Are you saying that, if I prove that Congress has the power to tell judges they cannot review a law, you will admit it also has the power to subpoena judges?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I’d like to see that as well.

Otherwise the notion of dragging ‘liberal’ judges before a republican House committee remains a delusional – and un-Constitutional – fantasy.

This has nothing to do with dragging ‘liberal’ judges before a republican House committee. But it does have plenty to do with Congress’ authorized powers which is explained in POST 124. And I suggest you follow the link to Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), in which the court explains in detail Congressional oversight powers with reference to subpoenaing witnesses to testify to aid in Congress‘ legislative powers.

Hope that helps.

JWK

Lord you're full of shit.

Just out of curiosity...what if the President was to be subpoenaed to appear before Congress to explain why he vetoed a bill or made some other decision that Congress wishes to question....would that be okay?

Been there, done that, or did you conveniently forget Watergate?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nixon perjured himself, a criminal act.

A court ruling is a political act defined and protected by the Constitution.

Newt is wrong, Peg is wrong, and those who defend this absurdity are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nixon perjured himself, a criminal act.

A court ruling is a political act defined and protected by the Constitution.

Newt is wrong, Peg is wrong, and those who defend this absurdity are wrong.

Nixon could not have perjured himself if he had not been testifying under oath after Congress subpoenaed him.

Court rulings are, by their very nature, non political. SCOTUS has expressly stated on multiple occasions that courts do not consider political issues between branches.

Newt is wrong, yet he is also right, that is what makes it scary, and makes me wonder why a faux Republican does not support him fully, especially since he is as far from the right wing of the Republican party as you are. Peg is not defending Newt.

I guess that makes you about as wrong as it is possible to be.

 

[pegwinn]

Newt is wrong, Peg is wrong, and those who defend this absurdity are wrong.

Heh.

 

[paperview]

Nixon could not have perjured himself if he had not been testifying under oath after Congress subpoenaed him.
...

Could you show me where Nixon testified before Congress?

This I'd like to see. Links would be nice.

Thanks in advance!

 

[paperview]

If you're trying to suggest that Congress could pass a bill, and include a clause that said the courts cannot consider the constitutionality of the bill, you are completely wrong.

pegwinn is wrong. Better minds conclude differently.

Well that certainly looks like a positive assertion from my place at the table. That makes it yours to prove if someone should question it.

??????????????????????????????????????????????

Batter up.

One does not have to disprove a claim for which no evidence has been presented. The lack of evidence itself proves that the claim has no basis.

My advice would be, don't dig yourself in any deeper than you already are.

I wonder how this theory of Jurisdiction Stripping complies with the Supremacy Clause.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are all waiting for Peg and QWB to come up with something substantiative. Their belief is not evidence. Come on, guys, stay to the point, please, and answer clearly, concisely, and conclusively.

 

[paperview]

You know, I've been dabbling into this Jurisdiction Stripping thing, and it has been revealing.
It seems like this is part of the ne0conservative plan; from a little look back in the records of the pre-2006 and 2006 congress', when the pubs held the majority.

In my research, I saw this reference to the "Pornography Jurisdiction Act" put out by Rep. Cannon. [2006]

U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, pitched his "Pornography Jurisdiction Act" as a way to keep federal courts from hearing challenges to state laws regulating sexually explicit material.

His proposal would ban federal courts from hearing or deciding "a question of whether a state pornography law imposes a constitutionally invalid restriction on the freedom of expression."

"Federal courts have been creating a dangerous climate for our children by overturning important decisions by state courts to restrict pornography consumption and distribution within their borders," Cannon said in a statement. "My legislation simply lets states decide for themselves how they tackle this problem."
Read more: Cannon tries to ban federal courts from hearing state porn cases

​

Following it up, it never became law, of course. Never even made it past committee. [http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-5528]

The article goes on to discuss the issue at large:

Several resolutions are pending in Congress that would take away the federal court system's jurisdiction over controversial social issues, including government-sanctioned prayer, the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, using "In God We Trust" as the national motto and provisions barring homosexuals from being married.
There is language in the Constitution discussing Congress' ability to set limits on the Supreme Court.
​

Article III, Section 2 says: "In all 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."

But it's not quite that clear, said Glenn C. Smith, a Supreme Court expert and law professor at the California Western School of Law in San Diego.

"The validity is up for grabs," he said. "If it's an intrusion on the court's independence, it's one that at least arguably is justified by the words of the document."
Even so, there's a body of scholarship that says imposing a restriction in order to influence the outcome of a case or group of cases is an abuse of the system.

"Speaking for myself, jurisdiction stripping which seeks to erode or water down constitutional rights is contrary to the spirit of the Constitution," Smith said. "I'm in good company, but there's a fair amount of speculation involved."

​

A list of all the bills before Congress at the time that tried to do the similar things:

*HR1070, Constitution Restoration Act of 2005: Would prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing a government official or agent's "acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government." LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in April 2005.

*HR1100, Marriage Protection Act of 2005: Seeks to keep federal courts and the Supreme Court from reviewing cases related to Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in April 2005.

*HR2389, Pledge Protection Act of 2005: The Supreme Court and federal courts would have no jurisdiction in cases interpreting the validity of Pledge of Allegiance. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in June 2005.

* HR4364, Public Prayer Protection Act: The Supreme Court could not review any "establishment of religion" cases involving public prayer by a government agency, officer or agent. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.

*HR4379, We the People Act: No federal court could review a state's laws or regulations relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion; any claim based on the right of privacy; and any equal protection claim involving the right of same-sex couples to get married. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.
​

*HR4576, Safeguarding Our Religious Liberties Act: Federal courts could not rule on cases involving Ten Commandments displays, the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Motto. LAST ACTION: Referred to a House subcommittee in February.

​

Not a single one of these even made it out of Committee, (in a Republican majority!) with the exception of the Pledge Protection Act of 2005:. This was voted on in the House and passed, then languished in the Judiciary Committee.

In reviewing the text, and the content of these proposed laws, I ask the readers: Notice any particular theme in what they are gunning for?;
that is, the kinds of laws they want these "jurisdiction stripping" bills applied?

​