Misunderstanding The Supreme Court

[ReinyDays]

"If I am innocent, I'd want a military jury ... If I'm guilty, I'd want a civilian jury" -- F. Scott Bailey

Only college graduates are allowed to serve on military juries ... cute ...

 

[PoliticalChic]

"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 ...

"You intentionally and maliciously changed my post so you could criticize my spelling "

You lying scum.....I quoted you exactly.....everyone can see the original in my post #7.

Get lost you disgusting little worm.

 

[Oddball]

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 ...

USSC was created by an act of congress....They can be abolished by them.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 ...

USSC was created by an act of congress....They can be abolished by them.

Well said.

Roberts has actually written about that.....I may post that one day.

 

[alang1216]

The Constitution is called the law of the land.

See if you can figure out why.

See if you can figure out who is the defender of the Constitution?

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. To understand the way the Supreme Court was originally envisioned, read Hamilton, who, on May 28, 1788, wrote in a newspaper article, what we call Federalist #78, that the courts, including the Supreme Court, were the weakest of the three branches created by the Constitution.


“He even footnoted that sentence with a quote from the famous French judge Montesquieu, who had first clearly articulated the idea of a separation of powers between governmental branches as a check and balance. Hamilton’s footnote read, “The celebrated Montesquieu, speaking of them, says: ‘Of the three powers above mentioned, the judiciary is next to nothing.’…the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches.”



… in June 1788, Hamilton published what is now known as the Federalist, no. 81, answering directly their objections, again arguing that the Supreme Court couldn’t make laws and couldn’t strike down laws. First, he cited (rather accurately) the objections to a Supreme Court in the Constitution that he was pushing, noting that they were concerned that judges— dangerously!—might interpret the Constitution in a way of their own personal choosing.

In the first place, there is not a syllable in the [Constitution] under consideration which DIRECTLY empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution, or which gives them any greater latitude in this respect than may be claimed by the courts of every State.”
Thom Hartmann



As I have often said, the Supreme Court pronouncements should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome....as merely a suggestion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. The purpose of the Federalist Papers was to answer all the fears and criticisms that independent-minded folks who rebelled against a king, about what they would be ratifying. Hamilton posited the correct responses…..but the old boys club, the governing class, what we call the Deep State, simply ignored rectitude and integrity in order to accrue power.



“Hamilton’s answer in the Federalist, no. 81, was that the Constitution itself prevented such an abuse of power, because the Supreme Court was explicitly subordinate to Congress.

We have seen that the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be confined to two classes of causes, and those of a nature rarely to occur [arguments between the states, and treaties with other nations]. In all other cases of federal cognizance, the original jurisdiction would appertain to the inferior tribunals; and the Supreme Court would have nothing more than an appellate jurisdiction, “with such EXCEPTIONS and under such REGULATIONS as the Congress shall make.”

If that wasn’t clear enough, in the next sentence Hamilton essentially repeated himself. To avoid all inconveniencies, it will be safest to declare generally, that the Supreme Court shall possess appellate jurisdiction both as to law and FACT, and that this jurisdiction shall be subject to such EXCEPTIONS and regulations as the national legislature may prescribe. This will enable the [rest of the] government to modify it in such a manner as will best answer the ends of public justice and security.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” by Thom Hartmann



Of course, that’s not what happened.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'


Federalist, no. 78:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.



Chief Justice Rehnquist states that, that Justices and judges need be restricted to decisions in accord with the Constitution, not their personal views, here:

“The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.”
https://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf


Any judge at any level who places his own views above the text of the Constitution needs to find another line of work.

 

[Gdjjr]

For once, I agree almost entirely with the OP- I say almost because of the attitude.

Not being a "constitutional scholar", like, say, Barak Obama, (or the OP) I look at the big picture for results. The results I see lead me to think that judges should not be lawyers, nor should law writers and they shouldn't have lawyers on their staff or at their disposal. They all believe they are too clever, or too smart and we're living the results. If they were half as clever as they believe themselves to be they would be half as clever as they believe themselves to be. Half assed to be politically correct.

They pay others to teach them to twist, spin, castigate, intentionally misinterpret, redefine words out right, lie to confuse and have the audacity to go on public television and declare it depends on the meaning of is. That doesn't require above average intelligence, it does, however, require a devious personality to accept that they alone have an esoteric knowledge- on simple English.

That attitude they have and their demeanor is unacceptable in a public venue or in everyday life.

I don't have a problem with appointing judges, per se', I do have a problem with the requirements, i.e., JD, lawyer etc.
The requirements should be reading comprehension and a straight forward test (not a lawyers opinion) on the constitution.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For once, I agree almost entirely with the OP- I say almost because of the attitude.

Not being a "constitutional scholar", like, say, Barak Obama, (or the OP) I look at the big picture for results. The results I see lead me to think that judges should not be lawyers, nor should law writers and they shouldn't have lawyers on their staff or at their disposal. They all believe they are too clever, or too smart and we're living the results. If they were half as clever as they believe themselves to be they would be half as clever as they believe themselves to be. Half assed to be politically correct.

They pay others to teach them to twist, spin, castigate, intentionally misinterpret, redefine words out right, lie to confuse and have the audacity to go on public television and declare it depends on the meaning of is. That doesn't require above average intelligence, it does, however, require a devious personality to accept that they alone have an esoteric knowledge- on simple English.

That attitude they have and their demeanor is unacceptable in a public venue or in everyday life.

I don't have a problem with appointing judges, per se', I do have a problem with the requirements, i.e., JD, lawyer etc.
The requirements should be reading comprehension and a straight forward test (not a lawyers opinion) on the constitution.

Interesting.

a. "Not being a "constitutional scholar", like, say, Barak Obama, (or the OP) "
I understand that this was meant tongue-in-cheek, but for clarity, the liar, Hussein, was never a professor of constitutional law.
Barack Obama disrespect for the laws of our country, and for the Constitution.


Let's review what we on the right stated long ago....and Obama himself just proved:

"Among the lies about himself Obama consistently repeats is that he was a constitutional law professor.

Lie one: Obama was never a professor; he was a lecturer. He did not have the qualifications to be a professor. Obama never published a single law paper. He was hired by the University of Chicago when they learned he had been given a book contract on race and law directly after graduating from Harvard. There was no book – just the contract, which he later reneged on. This is not the normal level of accomplishment for a University of Chicago professor or even lecturer.


Lie two: Obama did not specialize in the Constitution. Obama cared about and taught only one subject: race. One course was about race in the Constitution. It is on this flimsy basis that he attempts to pawn himself off as a constitutional scholar.

As the New York Times explains, Obama the lecturer taught three subjects only: "race, rights and gender."

His most traditional course was in the due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law. His voting rights class traced the evolution of election law, from the disenfranchisement of blacks to contemporary debates over districting and campaign finance. …His most original course, a historical and political seminar as much as a legal one, was on racism and law…

[In] one class on race, he imitated the way clueless white people talked. "Why are your friends at the housing projects shooting each other?" he asked in a mock-innocent voice. ...

Mr. Obama was especially eager for his charges to understand the horrors of the past, students say. He assigned a 1919 catalog of lynching victims, including some who were first raped or stripped of their ears and fingers, others who were pregnant or lynched with their children, and some whose charred bodies were sold off, bone fragment by bone fragment, to gawkers. … "Are there legal remedies that alleviate not just existing racism, but racism from the past?" Adam Gross, now a public interest lawyer in Chicago, wrote in his class notes in April 1994.

In what even some fans saw as self-absorption, Mr. Obama's hypothetical cases occasionally featured himself. "Take Barack Obama, there's a good-looking guy," he would introduce a twisty legal case.

Liberals flocked to his classes[.] … After all, the professor was a progressive politician[.]

Lie three: Obama calls himself a constitutional law prof to imply that he loves the Constitution. Obama gives the lie to this himself. He is on record – literally, a radio interview done when he was a lecturer – slamming the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution because they never tried to invent a right to "redistribute wealth" – a failing he describes as a "tragedy of the civil rights movement." Obama laments the constraints on government power (what we would call liberty) imposed by our Constitution. Obama himself contrasts following the Constitution with being a community organizer, creating "coalitions of power," which could "redistribute wealth" and create "economic justice."

Read more: Here's what 'constitutional scholar' Obama really taught at law school
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook




b. I am an expert on every topic I choose about which to post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

9. The only document by which American have agreed to be governed is the United States Constitution. In fact, it is known as 'the law of the land.'


Federalist, no. 78:

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former.



Chief Justice Rehnquist states that, that Justices and judges need be restricted to decisions in accord with the Constitution, not their personal views, here:

“The brief writer’s version seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems. Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a quite different light.

Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states.”
https://lc.org/071218TheNotionofaLivingConstitution.doc.pdf


Any judge at any level who places his own views above the text of the Constitution needs to find another line of work.

"judges should not be lawyers,"


Knowing what we know about lawyers, and their honesty, I can see a point there.

But, where, then, do we get judges?


Your disrespect for those individuals is well earned....in my country, it was reputed that one became a nominee for the position of judge by giving a year's salary to the party.....it's a Democrat county.

There should be a score-card for judges.....if they are overturned three times, they've struck out, and should find another line of work.

Sadly....the only places one finds justice is the dictionary and the cemetery.

 

[PoliticalChic]

For once, I agree almost entirely with the OP- I say almost because of the attitude.

Not being a "constitutional scholar", like, say, Barak Obama, (or the OP) I look at the big picture for results. The results I see lead me to think that judges should not be lawyers, nor should law writers and they shouldn't have lawyers on their staff or at their disposal. They all believe they are too clever, or too smart and we're living the results. If they were half as clever as they believe themselves to be they would be half as clever as they believe themselves to be. Half assed to be politically correct.

They pay others to teach them to twist, spin, castigate, intentionally misinterpret, redefine words out right, lie to confuse and have the audacity to go on public television and declare it depends on the meaning of is. That doesn't require above average intelligence, it does, however, require a devious personality to accept that they alone have an esoteric knowledge- on simple English.

That attitude they have and their demeanor is unacceptable in a public venue or in everyday life.

I don't have a problem with appointing judges, per se', I do have a problem with the requirements, i.e., JD, lawyer etc.
The requirements should be reading comprehension and a straight forward test (not a lawyers opinion) on the constitution.

One more point.....the Constitution is the law of the land....and should be treated so.


Case law and stare decisis is a trick Progressives use to obviate the Constitution.

1. Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.

... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


2. [Roscoe Pound] was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions



3. Instead of following the Constitution, 'social justice' is to be pursued from the bench by following the dictates of unelected judges.....caselaw.

"Christopher Columbus Langdell ....Before Langdell's tenure, the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. The case method has since been adopted and improved upon by schools in other disciplines, such as business, public policy, and education. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There is no excuse for this corruption of jurisprudence except for a hatred of America.

 

[Gdjjr]

However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law.

Nothing wrong with pragmatism- however, pragmatism is seen through the prism of subjective analysis thus must be viewed from that perspective when crafting laws to consider unintended consequences will happen- most people, especially lawyers, believe, it seems, that rules are made to be broken and that is true- there is always someone more clever than another. Some come by it naturally, some work at it and many emulate the former two- lawyers and judges don't seem to be among the latter or the former. They are merely regurgitators of tripe given them by tripe regurgitators- law professors who are paid to teach tripe as fact.