Let the tyranny begin

[SmarterThanYou]

This is complete and total bullshit.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.3920:/


Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004 (Introduced in House)

HR 3920 IH


108th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. R. 3920
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 9, 2004
Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky (for himself, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. POMBO, Mr. COBLE, Mr. COLLINS, Mr. GOODE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. HEFLEY, Mr. DOOLITTLE, and Mr. KINGSTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To allow Congress to reverse the judgments of the United States Supreme Court.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act of 2004'.

SEC. 2. CONGRESSIONAL REVERSAL OF SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS.

The Congress may, if two thirds of each House agree, reverse a judgment of the United States Supreme Court--

(1) if that judgment is handed down after the date of the enactment of this Act; and

(2) to the extent that judgment concerns the constitutionality of an Act of Congress.

SEC. 3. PROCEDURE.

The procedure for reversing a judgment under section 2 shall be, as near as may be and consistent with the authority of each House of Congress to adopt its own rules of proceeding, the same as that used for considering whether or not to override a veto of legislation by the President.

SEC. 4. BASIS FOR ENACTMENT.

This Act is enacted pursuant to the power of Congress under article III, section 2, of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[no1tovote4]

2/3 vote. I don't think too many decisions will be overturned.

I disagree with this Bill in principal and were I in Congress would vote against this as many times as I could.

 

[5stringJeff]

As I understand it, Congress is completely within its limits to pass such a bill, concerning the judgments of lower federal courts, but not the USSC.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

As I understand it, Congress is completely within its limits to pass such a bill, concerning the judgments of lower federal courts, but not the USSC.

not to get too far off base with the topic, but isn't congress' role in the lower courts ONLY jurisdiction and not overturning rulings? Thats why they are the legislature, not the judiciary.

 

[no1tovote4]

not to get too far off base with the topic, but isn't congress' role in the lower courts ONLY jurisdiction and not overturning rulings? Thats why they are the legislature, not the judiciary.

This is my understanding as well. The Congress is not the judiciary and have no means Constitutionally to overturn any ruling by the High Court. They have a balance in setting Jurisdiction (the reason that their one-use bill was constitutional) and they have a check in that they can Impeach a Judge for High Crimes (any crime committed by a person in Office) and Misdemeanors.

 

[5stringJeff]

not to get too far off base with the topic, but isn't congress' role in the lower courts ONLY jurisdiction and not overturning rulings? Thats why they are the legislature, not the judiciary.

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.

 

[no1tovote4]

It really doesn't matter, the bill was killed last year. Hasn't anybody noticed the date on it?

March 2004

 

[SmarterThanYou]

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.

im really starting to dislike that word, interpretation.

one thing that people seem to either not know, don't remember, or purposefully ignore is that the judiciary, while not elected but appointed, are appointed by OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!!!!! Therefore, should we not be holding our elected reps accountable for the judiciary?

 

[SmarterThanYou]

It really doesn't matter, the bill was killed last year. Hasn't anybody noticed the date on it?

March 2004

does that mean its actually dead? or just lounging around waiting for another opportunity?

 

[no1tovote4]

does that mean its actually dead? or just lounging around waiting for another opportunity?

Let's see if we can find any stories relating to this and find out if they plan on putting this up for any votes. It is unlikely that they will attempt to bring up the Bill again after it was killed before actually reaching the floor for a vote.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Let's see if we can find any stories relating to this and find out if they plan on putting this up for any votes. It is unlikely that they will attempt to bring up the Bill again after it was killed before actually reaching the floor for a vote.

status shows that its in commitee, lounging around. my guess is that theres going to be an even bigger press and assault on the 'judiciary out of control' to garner more support for this.

 

[no1tovote4]

status shows that its in commitee, lounging around. my guess is that theres going to be an even bigger press and assault on the 'judiciary out of control' to garner more support for this.

I guess it is time to contact my Representative.

 

[freeandfun1]

im really starting to dislike that word, interpretation.

one thing that people seem to either not know, don't remember, or purposefully ignore is that the judiciary, while not elected but appointed, are appointed by OUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES!!!!! Therefore, should we not be holding our elected reps accountable for the judiciary?

I understand your point, but also, let me point out that the courts are the ones that use the term "interpretation" more than anybody else. It is the courts that "interpret" the constitution.

 

[freeandfun1]

For all of you against the Congress having any say over the courts, can you please answer these questions? They are being asked in all seriousness, not just to argue.

If the Congress cannot control the courts, then who does? Are the courts the only branch of government that has no checks or balances? Should they really be allowed to run roughshod over the will of the people? Who are they accountable to? These are all serious questions. Why is it that nobody seems to think that the courts can't get out of control and impose tyranny?

 

[Nienna]

I understand your point, but also, let me point out that the courts are the ones that use the term "interpretation" more than anybody else. It is the courts that "interpret" the constitution.

You know, we really think along the same lines!

 

[Yurt]

not to get too far off base with the topic, but isn't congress' role in the lower courts ONLY jurisdiction and not overturning rulings? Thats why they are the legislature, not the judiciary.

This is a novel topic, one which has not been expressly addressed by congress or scotus, as far as I know.

As I understand it, since congress had authority to grant jurisdiction to lower federal courts, they also have the power to strip this jurisdiction, in effect, but not really, overturning a lower federal court ruling. Some say that this is an erosion of the seperate powers, however, the other camp says this is congress's unexercised power, in that, if they have the authority to create, well, then their law must reign supreme. (sheesh, I think I got reign supreme from Iron Chef, I am dooommmmed).

Good question though.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

For all of you against the Congress having any say over the courts, can you please answer these questions? They are being asked in all seriousness, not just to argue.

If the Congress cannot control the courts, then who does? Are the courts the only branch of government that has no checks or balances? Should they really be allowed to run roughshod over the will of the people? Who are they accountable to? These are all serious questions. Why is it that nobody seems to think that the courts can get out of control and impose tyranny?

As I understand it, justices can be tried for crimes, right? so they are not completely unnacountable in that respect.

As far as interpreting things go, that truly is their job, to interpret the laws as written or the constitution. Some do it better than others for sure...but there it is.

And as I said earlier above, the judiciary is appointed by our elected reps, therefore we should hold our reps accountable for who they nominate, shouldn't we?

 

[no1tovote4]

For all of you against the Congress having any say over the courts, can you please answer these questions? They are being asked in all seriousness, not just to argue.

If the Congress cannot control the courts, then who does? Are the courts the only branch of government that has no checks or balances? Should they really be allowed to run roughshod over the will of the people? Who are they accountable to? These are all serious questions. Why is it that nobody seems to think that the courts can get out of control and impose tyranny?

They have checks and balances.

Balance: The Congress sets the Jurisdiction of the courts, and approves of every Judge appointed to the Federal Judiciary. This is why it is important to vote Party when working at the Federal level.

Check: The Congress can Impeach a Judge for High Crimes (any crime by a person in office) and Misdemeanors.

They do not have the power to interpret the Constitution themselves, that is for the Courts per the Constitution itself, they are to be the end of the line.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

This is why it is important to vote Party when working at the Federal level.

I couldn't disagree with you more on this one single point. This whole discussion starting with the schiavo case started because of a conservative republican elected judge in the state of florida. Party voting? uh uh.

 

[no1tovote4]

I couldn't disagree with you more on this one single point. This whole discussion starting with the schiavo case started because of a conservative republican elected judge in the state of florida. Party voting? uh uh.

The Judge was elected to office, when it was investigated who gave him the money the ACLU and several DNC organizations donated the money. I don't think that this Judge is really a Republican. He may be registered as such, but I don't think from the people who support him that he truly is Republican, more likely a RINO. Also this law was put forward long before the Schiavo decisions and therefore this is not likely fallout from that, unless you suggest that Congress is Psychic.


There also is the fact that on average Republicans would not support an "activist" judge, since maybe only one or two RINOs like this Judge might get past it would not reflect the approval one way or the other.