Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

[PoliticalChic]

The fact is….you aren’t meant to understand it.



1.No entity is more successful at its mission than the school system. Under Liberal occupation, it’s mission is not education, but the very opposite. It aims to, and accomplishes, keeping students ignorant of history and of the US Constitution. And it is very good at this job.


2. "WASHINGTON — Chief Justice nominee John Roberts said Thursday there is no room for ideologues on the Supreme Court, declaring an “obligation to the Constitution” and to no other cause as he concluded three grueling days of confirmation testimony.

“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy’s going to win in court before me,” Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy’s going to win.”
Roberts: No room for ideologues on the bench


If only that were the case. It isn’t.


3. Think of the two and a half branches of government as a club, arrayed against the rubes, the hoi polloi, the ‘great unwashed.’ That wasn’t what America was meant to be. What Roberts said was the aim….a nation of individuals ruled by the Constitution.


This is what it has become: "In a 1907 speech [Charles Evans ] Hughes stated “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”
Today, though Hughes is dead, he leads the chorus of jurists and judicial activists that want to remake society in their own image, and try to use the Constitution to do it." Hughes' Hubris: Is the Constitution "What the Judges Say it is"?




4. The point first, and the proof second:

There are two branches of government under the Constitution, the two based on elections by the people. The other half-branch, the Judiciary, from 1789 until 1803, the Supreme Court was only the final court of appeals. Under Justice Marshall, it stole a power it was never entitled to.

"Judicial Review
The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)."

The authority for same does not exist.
The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.


“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf





Why did the elected parts of our government never call out the abuse of power by the Supreme Court?
No complaints from the elected parts of our government.....
.....ask yourself why they don't jealously guard their authorized power.

 

[Oddball]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

Amen!

 

[alang1216]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

Very short-sighted of you. The FF knew what they were doing.

I used to play a game called Risk when I was a kid. It was a game of global war. I learned quickly that if there were two players, one would always win and eliminate the other. However, when there were 3 competent players, they would keep each other in check and no one would ever be eliminated. You need at least 3 legs for a stable stool. Remember, the unelected 'oligarchs' were appointed by elected officials.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why did the elected parts of our government never call out the abuse of power by the Supreme Court?
No complaints from the elected parts of our government.....
.....ask yourself why they don't jealously guard their authorized power.




5. The reason that the executive and legislative, the real basis for America….elected offices….never slapped the wrist of the Supreme Court for stealing power that the Constitution did not authorize, is that ceding power to the Supreme Court worked to their advantage.

In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.


Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government....in effect, ending the federalism promised at ratification!





More and more power accrued to government against the individual….and that was peachy keen to the executive and legislative branches.

And, living under a blindfold of government schooling, of stupidity, far too many folks imagine that the clear language of a law is unintelligible until some anointed one in a black robe tells them what is says.

The Constitution is written in English!
For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’


The kabuki dance performed by the Supreme Court and its accomplices in the federal government, is not what the Founders intended.

 

[ReinyDays]

I've spent an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...

For example, Congress has passed a law setting a five year minimum prison sentence for those convicted of arson ... every judge and court in all the land hates this, thinks it's wrong and evil ... alas, it's The Law, and only Congress can writes the laws ... and long ago, the courts determined that minimum sentencing was within the rights of Congress, and Congress alone ... a kid sets fire to a pile of Federally owned leaves, bang, five years prison ... we don't fuck around on Federal land ...

What sets the United States judicial system above and beyond all other countries (except perhaps Canada) is the courts are independent of the political process, judges are appointed for life at the Federal level ... compare this to late 18th Century England where the judges were answerable to the King and King alone, not written law, but the whims of the King ... if you wish to abolish this system, do you wish to give the DoJ complete power over prosecution, judge, jury and executioner? ...

What I like about our system is that everything is public ... including the judge's reasoning on how they came to a decision ... the legislature can read this and if they disagree, they can re-write the law to clarify what they want ... we have a process here in Oregon where the judicial branch files a report with the legislature detailing all the problems the judges have found with the writing of the laws, thus affording the legislature an opportunity to correct themselves ... if the legislature wants to ...

Today, the government can't compel a woman to have an abortion ... this right is reserved to the woman alone ... if you want the government to have these rights, then pass a constitutional amendment stating such ... there, you've overturned the Supreme Court ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've spend an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in ... checks and balances ...

For example, Congress has passed a law setting a five year minimum prison sentence for those convicted of arson ... every judge and court in all the land hates this, thinks it's wrong and evil ... alas, it's The Law, and only Congress can writes the laws ... and long ago, the courts determined that minimum sentencing was within the rights of Congress, and Congress alone ... a kid sets fire to a pile of Federally owned leaves, bang, five years prison ... we don't fuck around on Federal land ...

What sets the United States judicial system above and beyond all other countries (except perhaps Canada) is the courts are independent of the political process, judges are appointed for life at the Federal level ... compare this to late 18th Century England where the judges were answerable to the King and King alone, not written law, but the whims of the King ... if you wish to abolish this system, do you wish to give the DoJ complete power over prosecution, judge, jury and executioner? ...

What I like about our system is that everything is public ... including the judge's reasoning on how they came to a decision ... the legislature can read this and if they disagree, they can re-write the law to clarify what they want ... we have a process here in Oregon where the judicial branch files a report with the legislature detailing all the problems the judges have found with the writing of the laws, thus affording the legislature an opportunity to correct themselves ... if the legislature wants to ...

Today, the government can't compel a woman to have an abortion ... this right is reserved to the woman alone ... if you want the government to have these rights, then pass a constitutional amendment stating such ... there, you've overturned the Supreme Court ...

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "

Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.





"...where the courts have a say, their word is final, and only the legislature determines what the courts have a say in..."

Luckily, I'm here to educate you, you dunce.

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴


The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions




Can you point to anything in my posts that is not 100% true, accurate and correct?

No?

Be sure to drop back when you have attained an education in the subject.

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Essentially, the Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government.

It happened simply because allowing it to become such was to the benefit of the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary rubber-stamped almost all power grabs by the federal government, over both the states, and the individual.




The Framers should have seen it coming. The first Republican President, did.

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, [then] in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent [Supreme Court] tribunal. —Abraham Lincoln, from his first inaugural speech, explaining why he refused to recognize the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision



And the father of the modern Democrat Party Andrew Jackson, who criticized Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in a case involving the Cherokee Indians, said, earlier “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”


These men guarded the power that the Founders gave those in elected office.

 

[Oddball]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

Very short-sighted of you. The FF knew what they were doing.

I used to play a game called Risk when I was a kid. It was a game of global war. I learned quickly that if there were two players, one would always win and eliminate the other. However, when there were 3 competent players, they would keep each other in check and no one would ever be eliminated. You need at least 3 legs for a stable stool. Remember, the unelected 'oligarchs' were appointed by elected officials.

I didn't say abolish the entire judicial branch.....Try again.

 

[alang1216]

6. Essentially, the Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government.

It happened simply because allowing it to become such was to the benefit of the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary rubber-stamped almost all power grabs by the federal government, over both the states, and the individual.




The Framers should have seen it coming. The first Republican President, did.

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, [then] in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent [Supreme Court] tribunal. —Abraham Lincoln, from his first inaugural speech, explaining why he refused to recognize the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision



And the father of the modern Democrat Party Andrew Jackson, who criticized Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in a case involving the Cherokee Indians, said, earlier “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”


These men guarded the power that the Founders gave those in elected office.

So if Virginia limited gun ownership to Militias, you'd support them?

 

[alang1216]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

Very short-sighted of you. The FF knew what they were doing.

I used to play a game called Risk when I was a kid. It was a game of global war. I learned quickly that if there were two players, one would always win and eliminate the other. However, when there were 3 competent players, they would keep each other in check and no one would ever be eliminated. You need at least 3 legs for a stable stool. Remember, the unelected 'oligarchs' were appointed by elected officials.

I didn't say abolish the entire judicial branch.....Try again.

Oh, just the SCOTUS. Got it. Who'd want to appeal a court decision anyway?

 

[Oddball]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

Very short-sighted of you. The FF knew what they were doing.

I used to play a game called Risk when I was a kid. It was a game of global war. I learned quickly that if there were two players, one would always win and eliminate the other. However, when there were 3 competent players, they would keep each other in check and no one would ever be eliminated. You need at least 3 legs for a stable stool. Remember, the unelected 'oligarchs' were appointed by elected officials.

I didn't say abolish the entire judicial branch.....Try again.

Oh, just the SCOTUS. Got it. Who'd want to appeal a court decision anyway?

You want to argue turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down?

 

[PoliticalChic]

6. Essentially, the Supreme Court has become the most powerful branch of government.

It happened simply because allowing it to become such was to the benefit of the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary rubber-stamped almost all power grabs by the federal government, over both the states, and the individual.




The Framers should have seen it coming. The first Republican President, did.

The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, [then] in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having, to that extent, practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent [Supreme Court] tribunal. —Abraham Lincoln, from his first inaugural speech, explaining why he refused to recognize the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision



And the father of the modern Democrat Party Andrew Jackson, who criticized Chief Justice John Marshall’s decision in a case involving the Cherokee Indians, said, earlier “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”


These men guarded the power that the Founders gave those in elected office.

So if Virginia limited gun ownership to Militias, you'd support them?

PLEEEEEEZZZZ.....restrict your posts to words you actually understand....

I understand that that may leave you mute.....but, no loss.


Obviously you don't know the meaning of 'militia.'

That's why I'm here.....for government school grads like you:


1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.


George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)


The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)


The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.


Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45, and to members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)
[10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]



Can we agree that you are a dunce?

 

[alang1216]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

Very short-sighted of you. The FF knew what they were doing.

I used to play a game called Risk when I was a kid. It was a game of global war. I learned quickly that if there were two players, one would always win and eliminate the other. However, when there were 3 competent players, they would keep each other in check and no one would ever be eliminated. You need at least 3 legs for a stable stool. Remember, the unelected 'oligarchs' were appointed by elected officials.

I didn't say abolish the entire judicial branch.....Try again.

Oh, just the SCOTUS. Got it. Who'd want to appeal a court decision anyway?

You want to argue turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down?

Which turtle would you stop at?

 

[Oddball]

Nine unelected oligarchs who believe that they rule the world.

Congress should have abolished them after Marbury.

Very short-sighted of you. The FF knew what they were doing.

I used to play a game called Risk when I was a kid. It was a game of global war. I learned quickly that if there were two players, one would always win and eliminate the other. However, when there were 3 competent players, they would keep each other in check and no one would ever be eliminated. You need at least 3 legs for a stable stool. Remember, the unelected 'oligarchs' were appointed by elected officials.

I didn't say abolish the entire judicial branch.....Try again.

Oh, just the SCOTUS. Got it. Who'd want to appeal a court decision anyway?

You want to argue turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down?

Which turtle would you stop at?

Don't care....Given my druthers, the entire judicial branch would be filled with private contractors, right down to the jurors who would be standing in judgment of the laws as well as the cases at hand, like they should be.

The entire judiciary has been turned into a political sewer and needs a total flushing.

 

[alang1216]

So if Virginia limited gun ownership to Militias, you'd support them?

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.

Thanks for the clarification. So if Virginia decided NOT to recognize the 2nd as an individual right and limited gun ownership to able-bodied white male citizens of age 18 and under age 45, you'd support them regardless of what the SCOTUS ruled?

 

[ReinyDays]

You want to argue turtles, turtles, turtles, all the way down?

Article III, Section 1: "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court ..."

Only Congress can "ordain and establish" courts inferior ...

 

[alang1216]

Given my druthers, the entire judicial branch would be filled with private contractors, right down to the jurors who would be standing in judgment of the laws as well as the cases at hand, like they should be.

The entire judiciary has been turned into a political sewer and needs a total flushing.

So justice goes to the low bidder? I wonder how they'll make any money in that system?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if Virginia limited gun ownership to Militias, you'd support them?

1792 Militia Act of 1792, setting forth standards for the May 2 Act, (1792 Militia Act of 1792 was passed by the Second Congress, allowing the president to call out members of the states militias.) including a] each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of age 18 and under age 45… b] provide himself with a good musket,…bayonet and belt,… not less than twenty four cartridges.; c] exempting all elected officials and employees of the government.

Thanks for the clarification. So if Virginia decided NOT to recognize the 2nd as an individual right and limited gun ownership to able-bodied white male citizens of age 18 and under age 45, you'd support them regardless of what the SCOTUS ruled?

The Constitution is called the law of the land.

See if you can figure out why.

 

[ReinyDays]

"I've spend (sic) an embarrassing large amount of time in a courtroom ... obviously, you haven't ... "
Perhaps you should have SPENT a bit more working on spelling.

You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling ... believe me, I like the idea of letting landlords handle their own evictions, a good solid beating keeps the tenants in line and rent paid ... every teenage girl should bear her landlord's baby first, so she has one child to care for her when she's old ... the Middle Class doesn't belong in a courtroom, not even on courthouse grounds ... the courts are for settling disputes between the Rich and the Rich alone ... lawyers get that, why can't you? ...

You're against the very institution that protects your Free Speech rights ... maybe you should stop speaking then ...