Discussion in 'Politics' started by ScreamingEagle, Jun 28, 2006.
What's with these Republicans? All talk and no do.
That seems reasonable to me. How is this a federal matter?
Horseshit. That's not how Democrats operate, and Inglis knows it. It runs contrary to their very ideology. If anything, they'll try to INCREASE federal jurisdiction, in order to circumvent that pesky concept - the will of the people. The Republicans are just being themselves - weak, trembling, and trouser-soaked. Why did we elect these pricks in the first place, if not to defend the Constitution? Grrr!
So? What the hell ARE state courts - a weigh station on the divinely predestined path to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals? They're SUPPOSED to rule on state matters!
Doesn't much matter what the Congress does. It's a lot of noise on the part of the right and yet another wedge issue.
Congress can't pass a law that is unconstitutional and can't take away review power from the Court.
Of course it didn't pass. The bill was ridiculous. But it got your blood going and will get out the right-wing vote for the midterm election.
That a fact. If Congress can't control the judiciary, just suppose you tell who can.
It is only your opinion that the law would be unconstitutional.
We probably should get rid of the Pledge of Allegience anyway. Only half of Americans believe in the words anyway.
Eau contraire, jilly-bear. Congress, can, and does, set jurisdictions. In fact - once upon a time - it did so in defense of the de-centralizing design of the U.S. Constitution. You remember the Constitution, don't you - the document that put the federal government on a short, jealously-guarded leash, so that the people could control the conduct of their everyday lives - independent of Big Daddy Government? A quaint concept - I know...
Did you...READ my post? The Republicans are diligently, determinedly slashing their own throats with conservative America. Congress's gutlessness is wearing thin.
I wonder if Jillian had this professor for the Legislative Process course? But shouldn't law school have fixed that? :shocked: Links at site:
Oh, Taranto goes on to add:
Congress sure CAN'T control the judiciary. It's a co-equal branch of government.
And good to know you once again chime in with an anti-democracy pov. You're consistent.
Er...jilly bear? hmmmmmmmm.... interesting. I'll take that as a term of endearment and not what it sounds like, k?
Congress can and does set jurisdiction as to subject matter jurisdiction. But it CANNOt usurp the power of the Court over a Constitutional issue.
I read your post. You seem to confuse right-wing extremists with "conservatives". Don't worry, you're not alone in that. Common affliction of about 1/3 of the country.
Er...Kathianne, we weren't talking about a constitutional amendment, which is what that article is about (or am I missing something). We were talking about Congress, by a simple majority, undermining judicial review of the Constitution and usurping judicial power.
BTW, "legislative process", which I assume would be akin to my American Congress class in college, isn't be a law school subject.
But I DID have a brilliant con-law professor. Boring as hell as a prof but amazing background.
LMAO - such is the state of higher education in this country!
And, actually, I'm against a specific federal ban myself. But, taking it out of federal jurisdiction is something I can definitely get behind. "Constitutionally protected free speech" is a bit of a stretch, IMHO. Like almost any other matter of everyday behavior, I say, follow the lead of our founding fathers. Trust states, communities, and individuals to run their own lives.
Separate names with a comma.