Andrew Jackson on Judicial Supremacy

[ShootSpeeders]

Examples, ShootSpeeders. Until you provide them, you are merely showing you are unhappy.

roe v wade, plyler v doe, bush v gore

Three decisions with no legal merit. The judges took bribes. They always do. That's what happens with judges appointed for life.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Examples, ShootSpeeders. Until you provide them, you are merely showing you are unhappy.

roe v wade, plyler v doe, bush v gore

Three decisions with no legal merit. The judges took bribes. They always do. That's what happens with judges appointed for life.

Examples of bribery.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

.

Dangers of Judicial Activism/Supremacy: Protect Religious Freedom | Protect Religious Liberty

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both

Nowhere does the constitution say only the SCOTUS may interpret it. All 3 branches have equal authority to do so and if any branch should be denied the authority it should be the federal judiciary since they are NOT elected.

Another failed thread by the OP, where he again only succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance.

There is no such thing as ‘judicial activism,’ it’s a phrase used by the right when un-Constitutional measures they support are correctly struck down by the courts.

All three branches may interpret their respective roles in government to the extent of current Constitutional case law. Should Congress, for example, overstep its Constitutional authority, and enact measures which violate the civil rights of Americans, such as DOMA, then citizens may challenge that law in Federal court, and seek its invalidation.

As long as a given branch of government functions within the context of the Constitution and its case law, it need not fear having its actions subject to judicial review. But whether the courts uphold or strike down an act or measure by any branch of the government, the courts have the sole authority to determine what the Constitution means, and the Supreme Court holds the ultimate and sole authority as to interpreting the Constitution.

As to judicial officers ‘not being elected,’ the fundamental wisdom and efficacy of judicial appointment is well established:

If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty.

The Federalist #78

This provision for the support of the judges bears every mark of prudence and efficacy; and it may be safely affirmed that, together with the permanent tenure of their offices, it affords a better prospect of their independence than is discoverable in the constitutions of any of the States in regard to their own judges.

The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own Constitution in respect to our own judges.

The Federalist #79

 

[JakeStarkey]

ShootSpeeders has every right to vent his feelings, but we need to realize he can't support his claims with any evidence.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How else can it work? In reality, the courts are the ones that determine guilt. Essentially, judicial review for constitutionality is the court saying that they cannot prosecute one law because another, higher one does not permit it. You don’t really need to have that in writing; it is a fundamental part of the courts. What else do you expect the court to do when laws disagree?

WTF are you prattling about?. Let's look at roe v wade where the SC invented the constitutional right to abortion. It had nothing to do with disagreement among laws, you nitwit. The SC should have simply refused to hear the case on grounds that abortion is clearly a state issue. There was no need for judicial review or interpretation of the constitution.

More ignorance from the OP.

Roe is the progeny of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where the Supreme Court struck down as un-Constitution a contraception regulatory measure that violated the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments to the Constitution. These Amendments clearly establish a right to privacy in the context of substantive due process as mandated by the 14th Amendment.

Roe, as per Griswold, required laws to be consistent with regard to the right to privacy, where the state has no authority to dictate to any person whether he may or may not have a child; whether a woman seeks to prevent pregnancy or terminate a pregnancy is not subject to government authority or interference.

Roe and the issue of abortion was subject to further review by the High Court in 1992. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey a conservative Rehnquist Court upheld as Constitutional the right to privacy:

After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.

Constitutional protection of the woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy derives from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It declares that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The controlling word in the case before us is "liberty." t is settled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to matters of substantive law as well as to matters of procedure. Thus all fundamental rights comprised within the term liberty are protected by the Federal Constitution from invasion by the States.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Consequently there is nothing ‘made up’ with regard to the Roe ruling or the right to privacy.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The only entity that was meant to interpret the Constitution was a JURY, through JURY NULLIFICATION. Google it.

The only time the Courts are entitled to interpret that Constitution is in a Case where there is no jury.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, there is going to be no recognition of jury nullification, never to be recognized in the law.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Roe is the progeny of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), where the Supreme Court struck down as un-Constitution a contraception regulatory measure that violated the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments to the Constitution. These Amendments clearly establish a right to privacy in the context of substantive due process as mandated by the 14th Amendment.
.

HAHAHA. Where does the constitution ever mention any right to privacy.?? It's not there and even if it was how would that extend to abortion? The judicial system prior to 1973 did not see any right to abortion in the constitution. For 150 years abortion had been a state issue. Why did it become a federal issue in 1973?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The only entity that was meant to interpret the Constitution was a JURY, through JURY NULLIFICATION. Google it.

The only time the Courts are entitled to interpret that Constitution is in a Case where there is no jury.

That's an interesting idea and perhaps that's what the founding fathers expected. If the jury thinks a law is unconstitutional, then they should refuse to convict. Otherwise, the law stands. That might work, at least in criminal cases. Civil cases would be another matter.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Another failed thread by the OP, where he again only succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance.

HAHAHA. More namecalling from the libulals. Thanks for admitting i'm right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Another failed thread by the OP, where he again only succeeds in exhibiting his ignorance.

HAHAHA. More namecalling from the libulals. Thanks for admitting i'm right.

You were the name caller, got outed, and now you admit your fail.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, there is going to be no recognition of jury nullification, never to be recognized in the law.

There has been Jury Nullification and the Supreme Court recognizes it you dipshit\

It's also in several State Constitutions

It's been used many times in our history.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Why don't you actually RESEARCH before you open your continuously filthy and lying mouth. Seriously you must be hired by Authoritarians to spout the shit you dribble all day. Who is your employer? I'm serious, who?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the SCOTUS does not recognize it as part of the case law, only as an aberration.

Man, you are light.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, the SCOTUS does not recognize it as part of the case law, only as an aberration.

Man, you are light.

Here it goes (why do anyone even bother responding to you, be honored that I even try):

Juries originally were introduced into England to protect the individual from the tyranny of government. The first case in which juries nullified a law was that of William Penn and William Mead in England in 1670 The jurors refused to convict the two Quaker activists charged with unlawful assembly. The judge refused to accept a verdict other than guilty, and ordered the jurors to resume their deliberations without food or drink. When the jurors persisted in their refusal to convict, the court fined them and committed them to prison until the fines were paid. On appeal, the Court of Common Pleas ordered the jurors released, holding that they could not be punished for their verdict.

Jury nullification was introduced into America in 1735 in the trial of John Peter Zenger, Printer of The New York Weekly Journal. Zenger repeatedly attacked Governor William Cosby of New York in his journal. This was a violation of the seditious libel law, which prohibited criticism of the King or his appointed officers. The attacks became sufficient to bring Zenger to trial. He clearly was guilty of breaking the law, which held that true statements could be libelous. However Zenger's lawyer, Andrew Hamilton, addressed himself to the jury, arguing that the court's law was outmoded. Hamilton contended that falsehood was the principal thing that makes a libel. It took the jury only a few minutes to nullify the law and declare Zenger not guilty. Ever since, the truth has been a defense in libel cases.

Several state constitutions, including the Georgia Constitution of 1777 and the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 specifically provided that "the jury shall be judges of law, as well as fact." In Pennsylvania, Supreme Court Justice James Wilson noted, in his Philadelphia law lectures of 1790, that when "a difference in sentiment takes place between the judges and jury, with regard to a point of law,...The jury must do their duty, and their whole duty; They must decide the law as well as the fact." In 1879, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted that "the power of the jury to be judge of the law in criminal cases is one of the most valuable securities guaranteed by the Bill of Rights."

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court stated in 1789: "The jury has the right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy." Samuel Chase, U. S. Supreme Court Justice and signer of the Declaration of Independence, said in 1796: "The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts. " U. S. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in 1902: "The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact." Harlan F. Stone, the 12th Chief Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, stated in 1941: "The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."

Juries have been delivering independent verdicts in the interest of justice for over 800 years, and many legal historians and scholars believe the value of juries is their power to act as the "conscience of the community," serving as the final check and balance on government in the moment of truth. If juries are nothing more than rubber stamps, they are no limit on government's power to pass unjust, immoral, or oppressive laws, and citizens are entirely at the mercy of sometimes jaded or corrupt courts and legislatures. This was what the Founding Fathers feared, and this is the reason why they guaranteed trial by jury three times in the Constitution -- more than any other right.

In Jury Nullification, author Clay Conrad examines the history, the law, and the practical and political implications of jury independence, examining in depth the role of nullification in capital punishment law, the dark side of jury nullification in Southern lynching and civil rights cases, and the purpose and legal effect of the juror's oath. The book concludes with an examination of what trial lawyers can do when nullification is the best available defense. This book should be of interest to historians, trial lawyers, criminologists, political scientists, and anyone interested in knowing how our criminal justice system works -- and how to make it better.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But that does not make it law is the point. Tell the prosecuting attorney in a case today you are going to do it and you will be placed under bond immediately or dismissed.

Too bad.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

But that does not make it law is the point. Tell the prosecuting attorney in a case today you are going to do it and you will be placed under bond immediately or dismissed.

Too bad.

Then you don't tell them. No one in their right mind would. Too bad.

Also it IS LAW IN FOUR STATES BECAUSE OF IT IS IN THEIR CONSTITUTION.

Every since Jon Jay IT HAS BEEN LAW EVERYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES, BECAUSE NO OTHER CASE HAS REVERSED HIS DECISION.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jury nullification - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Judicial opinion in the US

In the 1895 in the case of Sparf v. United States written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, the United States Supreme Court held 5 to 4 that a trial judge has no responsibility to inform the jury of the right to nullify laws. This decision, often cited, has led to a common practice by United States judges to penalize anyone who attempts to present a nullification argument to jurors and to declare a mistrial if such argument has been presented to them. In some states, jurors are likely to be struck from the panel during voir dire if they will not agree to accept as correct the rulings and instructions of the law as provided by the judge.[31]

In recent rulings, the courts have continued to prohibit informing juries about jury nullification. In a 1969, Fourth Circuit decision, U.S. v. Moylan, 417 F.2d 1002 (4th Cir.1969), the Court affirmed the concept of jury nullification, but upheld the power of a court to refuse to permit an instruction to the jury to this effect.[32] In 1972, in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling similar to Moylan that affirmed the de facto power of a jury to nullify the law but upheld the denial of the defense's chance to instruct the jury about the power to nullify.[33]

In 1988, the Sixth Circuit upheld a jury instruction: "There is no such thing as valid jury nullification." In 1997, the Second Circuit ruled that jurors can be removed if there is evidence that they intend to nullify the law, under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 23(b).[34] The Supreme Court has not recently confronted the issue of jury nullification. Further, as officers of the court, attorneys have sworn an oath to uphold the law, and are ethically prohibited from directly advocating for jury nullification.[35]

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No, the SCOTUS does not recognize it as part of the case law, only as an aberration.

Man, you are light.

You still haven't referenced any CASE of the Scotus that has reversed its original judgement or declared it to be an aberration; you've only cited lower courts.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

http://fija.org/docs/JG_Jurors_Handbook.pdf

Jury Nullification In New Hampshire Becomes Reality

Also that PDF file is LITTERED with Court Cases (recent Cases) approving of Jury Nullification.

 

[editec]

.

Dangers of Judicial Activism/Supremacy: Protect Religious Freedom | Protect Religious Liberty

The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both

Nowhere does the constitution say only the SCOTUS may interpret it. All 3 branches have equal authority to do so and if any branch should be denied the authority it should be the federal judiciary since they are NOT elected.

A legal scholar you're NOT, kid.

SECTION 2.

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;--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.

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.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.