Andrew Jackson on Judicial Supremacy

[FA_Q2]

I was addressing you, 2nd, not the amendment.

And, no, your opinion has been contravened by the various court rulings above.

Your opinion, podjo, is not law.

I still think that you are incorrect in this assessment. I do not believe that a judge can overturn a jury's not guilty decision because they 'nullified' the law. Do you have proof that is not the case?

 

[hortysir]

If SCOTUS is not the ultimate arbiter then who is?

3 brances:

Legislative
Judicial
Executive

Each can check the other.

Remember when the SCOTUS (John Roberts) infamously upheld Obamacare?
He hinted the caveat that Congress can repeal or replace it.

Executive orders take side-steps all the time, too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I was addressing you, 2nd, not the amendment.

And, no, your opinion has been contravened by the various court rulings above.

Your opinion, podjo, is not law.

I still think that you are incorrect in this assessment. I do not believe that a judge can overturn a jury's not guilty decision because they 'nullified' the law. Do you have proof that is not the case?

I think I am correct but the link below makes the subject clearer: power vs right.

Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

[
The SCOTUS not only has the right to interpret the Constitution, it has the obligation to do so, too.

And so do the executive and legislative branches.. They also took an oath to uphold the constitution.

As interpreted by the Supreme Court.

 

[JakeStarkey]

da court is da constihtooshun king!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Remember when the SCOTUS (John Roberts) infamously upheld Obamacare?
He hinted the caveat that Congress can repeal or replace it.

.

Of course they can repeal or replace it. Congress passed obozocare. No hint is needed!!!!

The question is if congress or the president repeal scotus rulings? Maybe not repeal, but they can certainly ignore the rulings.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Bush, if anyone, had the power to ignore the rulings, and he was too scared to do so.

No, the Pres and the Congress will not ignore the rulings.

And, yes, Congress can eliminate the ACA, but it won't even with a GOP majority.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Bush, if anyone, had the power to ignore the rulings, and he was too scared to do so.

No, the Pres and the Congress will not ignore the rulings.
.

We'll see. Fact is a very strong argument can be made for taking away this idiotic policy of letting unelected judges have final say on every issue. Both legally and ethically, the present system is hard to justify. It's just a stupid custom.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Bush, if anyone, had the power to ignore the rulings, and he was too scared to do so.

No, the Pres and the Congress will not ignore the rulings.

And, yes, Congress can eliminate the ACA, but it won't even with a GOP majority.

I'd prefer Congress and the executive follow Court rulings, even if the Court rules unjustly. Without that, at least that, you descend into a hybrid despotic-anarchy very quickly.

 

[Dante]

Bush, if anyone, had the power to ignore the rulings, and he was too scared to do so.

No, the Pres and the Congress will not ignore the rulings.

And, yes, Congress can eliminate the ACA, but it won't even with a GOP majority.

I'd prefer Congress and the executive follow Court rulings, even if the Court rules unjustly. Without that, at least that, you descend into a hybrid despotic-anarchy very quickly.

Same-sex marriage rulings included?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Bush, if anyone, had the power to ignore the rulings, and he was too scared to do so.

No, the Pres and the Congress will not ignore the rulings.

And, yes, Congress can eliminate the ACA, but it won't even with a GOP majority.

I'd prefer Congress and the executive follow Court rulings, even if the Court rules unjustly. Without that, at least that, you descend into a hybrid despotic-anarchy very quickly.

Same-sex marriage rulings included?

Yep. Government has no right to dictate bedroom procedure, marriage dogmas or contraceptive usage.

The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, is not to be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Combine that with the Tenth Amendment, and you get EXACTLY how the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted.

The Ninth Amendment has four important functions:


III. It functions to define Judicial Tyranny, limiting the power of judicial review (in conjunction with the 10th Amendment).


IV. To define and encourage Judicial Activism, assuming it does not fall under the category of Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Limits the rights of citizens.

2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.

3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.

4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be delimited, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.

IV.

The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.

Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny

2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.

3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.

 

[Dante]

I'd prefer Congress and the executive follow Court rulings, even if the Court rules unjustly. Without that, at least that, you descend into a hybrid despotic-anarchy very quickly.

Same-sex marriage rulings included?

Yep. Government has no right to dictate bedroom procedure, marriage dogmas or contraceptive usage.

The enumeration in this Constitution, of certain rights, is not to be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Combine that with the Tenth Amendment, and you get EXACTLY how the Constitution is supposed to be interpreted.

The Ninth Amendment has four important functions:


III. It functions to define Judicial Tyranny, limiting the power of judicial review (in conjunction with the 10th Amendment).


IV. To define and encourage Judicial Activism, assuming it does not fall under the category of Judicial Tyranny.

Judicial Tyranny is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Limits the rights of citizens.

2. Limits the rights of States vs the Federal Government.

3. Expands the power of the federal government over the States or citizens.

4. Expands the powers of the State government over the citizens.

The only way our Constitution allows the rights of citizens to be delimited, or of States, or of the Federal government; or an expansion of State power, or an expansion of Federal power, is by Amending the Constitution in adherence to Article V of the Constitution.

IV.

The final function is to establish under which circumstances that Judicial Review can act as positive force, and what exactly are the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Judicial Review process, we will call this positive form of Judicial Review to be Judicial Activism.

Judicial Activism is defined as any ruling by either a judge(s) or jury that:

1. Is not an act of Judicial Tyranny

2. Expands the rights of citizens without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of either the State or Federal governments.

3. Expands the rights of States, without abridging or nullifying the enumerated powers of the Federal Government.

4. Does not serve to legislate Common Law.

The people who wrote, and ratified the Constitution could not agree. How do you know what is correct if they could not figure it all out?

 

[FA_Q2]

I was addressing you, 2nd, not the amendment.

And, no, your opinion has been contravened by the various court rulings above.

Your opinion, podjo, is not law.

I still think that you are incorrect in this assessment. I do not believe that a judge can overturn a jury's not guilty decision because they 'nullified' the law. Do you have proof that is not the case?

I think I am correct but the link below makes the subject clearer: power vs right.

Jury Nullification: History, questions and answers about nullification, links

According to your link though you are incorrect:

Juries clearly have the power to nullify; whether they also have the right to nullify is another question. Once a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty," that verdict cannot be questioned by any court and the "double jeopardy" clause of the Constitution prohibits a retrial on the same charge.

As far as I know, nullification is not only possible but nothing can challenge it once it is done. I can’t find a single example of a jury’s not guilty verdict being overturned on those grounds. You would have to find such an example to show that it is possible.

Further, I personally believe that nullification is one of the core reasons to have a jury in the first place. In all honesty, a jury is a piss poor way to ensure that people are judged properly. Simply put, the average person on a jury is a terrible judge of guilt. The one redeeming factor, and ultimately the reason that juries are a good idea, is that a jury can and does apply the law as is should be applied not always as the letter demands. I’ll give you a good example and one where nullification was practiced:

In CA, we passed a shit 3 strikes law. Originally, it was sold as a way to put violent repeat offenders in jail for life to get them off the streets. Such black and white law is terrible though as Californians quickly found out that this law applied to small scale thefts and other crimes that were not violent as well. My grandfather was on the jury of one such trial where a young man was being charged with breaking into his mother’s home and stealing a Nintendo and various related items (games/controllers etc.). He was clearly guilty and should have been put in jail for a few months. Through the trial though, the jury discovered that his crime qualified for the three strikes clause and that this would have been his third strike. The other 2 strikes were on the same level as this one, small unarmed theft. Had the jury returned a guilty verdict, the sentence would have been life. AFAIK, the jury was not even supposed to know that the verdict would have carried that sentence the but the judge and BOTH lawyers really did not want a conviction because of the onerous and asinine sentence that this man (who was not even 20 yet) would have received.

They returned a ‘not guilty’ verdict for him even though he was clearly guilty. There was never even a question, the law in this case was simply wrong and its spirit would not have been upheld had they returned the ‘correct’ verdict by the letter of the law. The jury had a damn duty to nullify it. This is one simple case but there are MANY examples where a jury should nullify a law.

Statutory rape cases that involve people who might only be MONTHS apart in age is another easy example. Sexting between two minors another such instance. There are a ton of places where a jury should be using their heads to not only decide guilt but also decide whether or not the guilty party should be charged or not.

 

[editec]

Apparently not even the Constitution itself is right.

SpeedShooter must be channeling the founding fathers.

Because sure as shit he isn't reading what the Consiutution says, OR even what this nation has agreed it to mean for the last 200+ years.

Faith based idiocy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SS took "power" and "right" that I pointed out from the link and went in an entirely unsupported direction.

He mistakes that he is not a source and his opinions not evidence.

And he sure does not like the Constitution.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

I'd prefer Congress and the executive follow Court rulings, even if the Court rules unjustly. Without that, at least that, you descend into a hybrid despotic-anarchy very quickly.

Don't call them "rulings". There is absolutely no legal justification for most of what the scotus says. They just make stuff up to support their own personal views or the views of the people who bribe them. Look at roe v wade or plyler v doe or bush v gore.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

[

Further, I personally believe that nullification is one of the core reasons to have a jury in the first place. In all honesty, a jury is a piss poor way to ensure that people are judged properly. Simply put, the average person on a jury is a terrible judge of guilt. The one redeeming factor, and ultimately the reason that juries are a good idea, is that a jury can and does apply the law as is should be applied not always as the letter demands. I’ll give you a good example and one where nullification was practiced:

.

Wrong. The redeeming factor of juries is that they are hard to bribe. Judges are easy to bribe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

[

I'd prefer Congress and the executive follow Court rulings, even if the Court rules unjustly. Without that, at least that, you descend into a hybrid despotic-anarchy very quickly.

Don't call them "rulings". There is absolutely no legal justification for most of what the scotus says. They just make stuff up to support their own personal views or the views of the people who bribe them. Look at roe v wade or plyler v doe or bush v gore.

Your opinion, nothing else.

 

[regent]

The utility of the Supreme Court is that at times a robed politician selected for the court to carry out the president's policies finds a higher calling, what is right for America. He or she abandons the president, the political party, their previous politics and becomes a judge not a politician. There have been a few of these judges, and their job for life makes the change easier. Some day perhaps a computer can take over the decisions but then who programs the computer?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The utility of the Supreme Court is that at times a robed politician selected for the court to carry out the president's policies finds a higher calling, what is right for America.

BS - it's not their job to do what is right for america. They are supposed to base their decisions on the law. In 90% of the cases decided by the federal courts, the proper response would have been "we have no jurisdiction". Roe v wade is a perfect example.

THINK