Marbury vs Madison

[Viktor]

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

The Supreme Ct has the power to declare acts and laws "unconstitutional."

 

[rightwinger]

Been working for over 200 years

 

[Kilroy2]

Yet each side keep bringing those cases before the court in a hope for a win

Imagine if we all just got along and no disagreements. A supreme court gig would be the ultimate paid vacation.

 

[Viktor]

Yet each side keep bringing those cases before the court in a hope for a win

Imagine if we all just got along and no disagreements. A supreme court gig would be the ultimate paid vacation.

Only the courts can stop the politicians from abusing us.

 

[Kilroy2]

Only the courts can stop the politicians from abusing us.

IF the court can stay politically neutral.

 

[Viktor]

IF the court can stay politically neutral.

That is difficult, since the justices are appointed by politicians.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

The Supreme Ct has the power to declare acts and laws "unconstitutional."

Bury Marbury

MvM begs the question: the Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution had given them that power, they would have exercised it from the beginning and anti-democratic lawyers would have appealed to it from 1789 on.

Second, their usurpation was obiter dictum, a non-binding commentary tacked on to their opinion on the case and which had no direct relevance to Marbury's claim. Third, Jefferson started to impeach them for this tyranny and the frightened Clowns With Gavels and Gowns promised that they would continue to give non-binding opinions only.

The sneaky and nasty personalities of this Star Chamber was shown when, after taking all the power away from the President, the legislators, and the people, the first thing they decreed was that they would refuse that power in this Presidential-appointment case, the only time any SCROTUS Justice ("Just Us") ever did.

 

[Viktor]

Bury Marbury

MvM begs the question: the Justices interpreted the Constitution as giving them the right to interpret the Constitution. If the Constitution had given them that power, they would have exercised it from the beginning and anti-democratic lawyers would have appealed to it from 1789 on.

Second, their usurpation was obiter dictum, a non-binding commentary tacked on to their opinion on the case and which had no direct relevance to Marbury's claim. Third, Jefferson started to impeach them for this tyranny and the frightened Clowns With Gavels and Gowns promised that they would continue to give non-binding opinions only.

The sneaky and nasty personalities of this Star Chamber was shown when, after taking all the power away from the President, the legislators, and the people, the first thing they decreed was that they would refuse that power in this Presidential-appointment case, the only time any SCROTUS Justice ("Just Us") ever did.

WRONG. The power of Judicial review is implied from the text of the constitution

From Cornell Law​

Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.
The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall:

Moreover, much of our law comes from English Common Law where Judicial review is accepted as custom.

Judicial review in English law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pellinore]

WRONG. The power of Judicial review is implied from the text of the constitution

From Cornell Law​

Judicial review is the idea, fundamental to the US system of government, that the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are subject to review and possible invalidation by the judiciary. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to take an active role in ensuring that the other branches of government abide by the constitution.
The text of the Constitution does not contain a specific provision for the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. Judicial review of the government was established in the landmark decision of Marbury v. Madison, the first Supreme Court decision to strike down the act of Congress as unconstitutional, with the famous line from Chief Justice John Marshall:

Moreover, much of our law comes from English Common Law where Judicial review is accepted as custom.

Judicial review in English law - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Correct. Marbury was John Marshall giving that implied custom a solid legal base.

 

[Kilroy2]

That is difficult, since the justices are appointed by politicians.

it is difficult but from what little I know of Roberts , he seems to be staying neutral and playing both sides of the field

 

[Viktor]

it is difficult but from what little I know of Roberts , he seems to be staying neutral and playing both sides of the field

Fortunately, most judges are able to make decisions on the basis of law only. They are carefully screened by the Senate.

 

[DudleySmith]

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

The Supreme Ct has the power to declare acts and laws "unconstitutional."

And Congress has the power to override their decisions and make them laws anyway. The SC can't declare Amendments unconstitutional, for instance.

 

[Kilroy2]

Fortunately, most judges are able to make decisions on the basis of law only. They are carefully screened by the Senate.

yeah they must of miss that one when they allowed Clarence Thomas in.

 

[task0778]

Only the courts can stop the politicians from abusing us.

INHO, the only way we can stop the politicians from abusing us is to vote the motherfuckers out of office. Dems or Repubs, don't care; if they ain't doing the job we expected or approve of, then it's our responsibility to vote 'em out. And if we don't then it's on us for allowing ourselves to be fucked over. Makes no difference what level of gov't either: city, county, state, or federal.

 

[task0778]

yeah they must of miss that one when they allowed Clarence Thomas in.

Ditto for Kagan and Sotomayor.

 

[Viktor]

yeah they must of miss that one when they allowed Clarence Thomas in.

BLOCK

 

[LuckyDuck]

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

The Supreme Ct has the power to declare acts and laws "unconstitutional."

President Andrew Jackson enacted the "Indian Removal Act" of 1830. Lawyers against the act, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court declared Indians to be "protected citizens" and the Indian Removal Act as unconstitutional. In response, President Jackson, ordered his troops to remove the Indians west of the Mississippi, saying: "Let's see them enforce it."
The problem with the Supreme Court is that no matter what decision they make, they have no actual enforcement ability and as some leftist politicians in California are telling their state courts to ignore any rulings from the Supreme Court that disagree with their anti-gun agenda, the Supreme Courts rulings are moot if states don't comply and the leftist federal government won't back the Supreme Court on the matter.

 

[Viktor]

President Andrew Jackson enacted the "Indian Removal Act" of 1830. Lawyers against the act, took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, where the Supreme Court declared Indians to be "protected citizens" and the Indian Removal Act as unconstitutional. In response, President Jackson, ordered his troops to remove the Indians west of the Mississippi, saying: "Let's see them enforce it."
The problem with the Supreme Court is that no matter what decision they make, they have no actual enforcement ability and as some leftist politicians in California are telling their state courts to ignore any rulings from the Supreme Court that disagree with their anti-gun agenda, the Supreme Courts rulings are moot if states don't comply and the leftist federal government won't back the Supreme Court on the matter.

The Executive Branch is taxed to enforce laws made by Congress and court decisions. When the SC ordered all public schools to be racially integrated in 1954 and Arkansas resisted, Pres Eisenhower sent in troops to make it happen.
If a President refuses to comply with SC decisions, he could be impeached by Congress.

You are lying. The President has no power to enact laws. He can issue exec orders but those can be declared unconstitutional by the SC.

 

[Pellinore]

It is correct that Jackson did not "enact" the Indian Removal Act, but he did push for it, sign it, and enforce it vigorously. It may have been the Governor of Georgia who said "Let's see him enforce it," or it may be apocryphal, but either way the sentiment was sure there.

And yeah, it's one of my concerns of our system of separation of powers that the Judicial and Legislative branches have practically no enforcement value of their own; it's left to the Executive Branch, so a rogue President could undermine a shocking amount of judicial or legal orders. This is especially true if the President has the support of 67 or more Senators, in which case they can commit literally *any* federal crime, with no fear.

That's one reason why we must absolutely, always have (among other things) an independently-operating Justice Department, free from Presidential influence. I do worry about a future power-hungry President whittling away at that custom even more.

 

[MadChemist]

The Supreme Court . The Court and Democracy . Landmark Cases . Marbury v. Madison (1803) | PBS

The Supreme Ct has the power to declare acts and laws "unconstitutional."

Total Bullshit.