Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

[PoliticalChic]

You are wrong but then I already knew that.

I'm never wrong....so you know nothing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Already quoted the actual authority it says in plain English that the supreme Court has all jurisdiction in all federal matters.

 

[rightwinger]

Roe v Wade is the law of the land

 

[CWayne]

Ask yourself this.

What part of the Judicial branch is tasked with enforcement?

Does the judicial enforcement agency wear black robes as well?

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.

Monday may be quite a day in Virginia....

remember the sequel?

 

[Kilroy2]

Come on Annie

It is u who do not know what the federalist papers are

They are just an opinion that they had 200 years ago that you are trying to regurgitate , Alexander Hamilton, yeah the original federalist papers where in defense of the constitution

People like yourself see it differently and try to interpret it

Hamilton wrote a harshly critical pamphlet attacking Burr. In the 1800 election, he temporarily cast aside his dislike of Jefferson to engineer the defeat of fellow New Yorker and Federalist Burr (who he deeply distrusted), fueling a hatred in Burr that would lead to their deadly duel just four years later.

keep trying Annie but please add some substance

If you ask Trump what the federalist paper is he would probably challenge you to a dual

Donald Trump claimed he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters."

 

[Kilroy2]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”


oligarchy.


2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. 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.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “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 people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, if it is not found within the text of the Constitution itself

Do presidents want to act like Kings under the presumption that there actions are supported by all the people but in reality it is supported by some of the people.

We the people is not some of the people

Some consider the court to be oligarchy rule but its better than being ruled by one man

Those who cry foul are just trying to change the Constitution but then again that is why you have amendments

The court members are chosen by the President and approved by congress

On cases that they want to hear, they are the final word by a group of people instead of one man who is beholding to the people who elected him and if he wants to be reelected then he has to please them

Somebody has to stand up to a rouge President who has no experience in government but basically won a popularity contest

They are there for life and hold a very high position and you would hope that they can put political bias aside which I really doubt that Trump can do

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,

Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme

Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate

source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that

originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original

Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some

authority to the federal government and have reserved authority

not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

[Liberal judicial activism] 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."




Can I get an 'Amen'!!!

You seem to have misinterpreted that one as he does not makes a strong to your position as his meaning is pretty deep but I will give you a hint

Understand what judicial activism is will put it in more prospective for you and it does not support you opinion that court is overstepping their authority


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."

Ideally The courts are there to reign in the Congress and the President when they step on constitutional issues and rights of government, people etc.

with all the partisan hacking gone on it is up to the Supreme Court to not have political bias but to rise above it but it is hard for some of them.

that why I really would like to see a more balanced court with equal number of both democrats and republicans and the Chief justice and be either one but is the ultimate arbitrator of fairness and should be the least partisan



The Supreme court is a part of the government

Article III of the Constitution identifies the third branch of our separated government, empowering the courts to decide cases and limiting them to the exercise of a certain kind of authority.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

Can it be interrupted in different way , yeah if you are deeply partisian

Laws that are struck down by the court can be rewritten to where it becomes acceptable to the court

Balance of power

catch it and understand it

In the my opinion the Constitution is a legal document between the people and the government

Can you keep all the people happy

NO

English is not my first language....but it appears that you don't have even a first one.


Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.



The Supreme Court itself, as it stands today, is unconstitutional.

Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.

Just because you can speak English, does not mean you can understand English

You quote the 11 amendment well for a person who is never wrong you got this one wrong

Claim that this supports you position but it doesn't

(The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789)

This basically means that a foreign state cannot bring a suite in law before the court as a foreign state is another country and it is pretty clear what they mean.

but your boy Rehnquist did not like that interpretation and took it one step further and wanted to get involved in suits with citizens within a US state

Your boy tried to limit the federal government and even got involved in State squabbles

Rehnquist tried to weave his view of the 14th amendment into his opinion for Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, but it was rejected by the other justices.

He voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans

Still his federalism doctrine was more focused on limited the federal government and resolving individual issues within the states in America.

So in reality he was all for making decisions that involved the federal government and state government

Thus the problem with judicial activism it can mean different things to different people

when it suits repubs they are all for it but when it goes against them then they complain

well he was a good repub and he was against Roe VS Wade

 

[PoliticalChic]

Already quoted the actual authority it says in plain English that the supreme Court has all jurisdiction in all federal matters.

Here's reality.

“Of the two religion clauses- the one forbidding an establishment of religion and the other guaranteeing its free exercise- it is the establishment clause that has suffered the most abuse. Both the text and the history of its adoption show conclusively that what was to be place beyond Congress’s power was the establishment of churches….

The anti-establishment clause manifested no hostility to organized religion as such nor any intention to forbid Congress from aiding religion generally.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


Where does your citation allow this?



Bork describes the period before Everson, in this way:
“Vibrant religion there was, but no hint of theocracy or religious war. Now, under the tutelage of the Court and the American Civil Liberties Union, religious symbols and speech must everywhere be suppressed.

…so antagonistic to religion because religion…stands in the way of the moral relativism to which the Court seems dedicated.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


I don't believe you'll be able to answer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ask yourself this.

What part of the Judicial branch is tasked with enforcement?

Does the judicial enforcement agency wear black robes as well?

. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.” Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land



And that is the way the court's decisions should be viewed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Come on Annie

It is u who do not know what the federalist papers are

They are just an opinion that they had 200 years ago that you are trying to regurgitate , Alexander Hamilton, yeah the original federalist papers where in defense of the constitution

People like yourself see it differently and try to interpret it

Hamilton wrote a harshly critical pamphlet attacking Burr. In the 1800 election, he temporarily cast aside his dislike of Jefferson to engineer the defeat of fellow New Yorker and Federalist Burr (who he deeply distrusted), fueling a hatred in Burr that would lead to their deadly duel just four years later.

keep trying Annie but please add some substance

If you ask Trump what the federalist paper is he would probably challenge you to a dual

Donald Trump claimed he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters."

Did you read them.


Of course you didn't.

Nor do you understand their significance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

“Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”


oligarchy.


2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

It says no such thing.

The authority for same does not exist.



3. 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.



4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

"Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

Nada.

“Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

Lincoln: “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 people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, if it is not found within the text of the Constitution itself

Do presidents want to act like Kings under the presumption that there actions are supported by all the people but in reality it is supported by some of the people.

We the people is not some of the people

Some consider the court to be oligarchy rule but its better than being ruled by one man

Those who cry foul are just trying to change the Constitution but then again that is why you have amendments

The court members are chosen by the President and approved by congress

On cases that they want to hear, they are the final word by a group of people instead of one man who is beholding to the people who elected him and if he wants to be reelected then he has to please them

Somebody has to stand up to a rouge President who has no experience in government but basically won a popularity contest

They are there for life and hold a very high position and you would hope that they can put political bias aside which I really doubt that Trump can do

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,

Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme

Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate

source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that

originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original

Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some

authority to the federal government and have reserved authority

not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

[Liberal judicial activism] 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."




Can I get an 'Amen'!!!

You seem to have misinterpreted that one as he does not makes a strong to your position as his meaning is pretty deep but I will give you a hint

Understand what judicial activism is will put it in more prospective for you and it does not support you opinion that court is overstepping their authority


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."

Ideally The courts are there to reign in the Congress and the President when they step on constitutional issues and rights of government, people etc.

with all the partisan hacking gone on it is up to the Supreme Court to not have political bias but to rise above it but it is hard for some of them.

that why I really would like to see a more balanced court with equal number of both democrats and republicans and the Chief justice and be either one but is the ultimate arbitrator of fairness and should be the least partisan



The Supreme court is a part of the government

Article III of the Constitution identifies the third branch of our separated government, empowering the courts to decide cases and limiting them to the exercise of a certain kind of authority.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

Can it be interrupted in different way , yeah if you are deeply partisian

Laws that are struck down by the court can be rewritten to where it becomes acceptable to the court

Balance of power

catch it and understand it

In the my opinion the Constitution is a legal document between the people and the government

Can you keep all the people happy

NO

English is not my first language....but it appears that you don't have even a first one.


Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.



The Supreme Court itself, as it stands today, is unconstitutional.

Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.

Just because you can speak English, does not mean you can understand English

You quote the 11 amendment well for a person who is never wrong you got this one wrong

Claim that this supports you position but it doesn't

(The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789)

This basically means that a foreign state cannot bring a suite in law before the court as a foreign state is another country and it is pretty clear what they mean.

but your boy Rehnquist did not like that interpretation and took it one step further and wanted to get involved in suits with citizens within a US state

Your boy tried to limit the federal government and even got involved in State squabbles

Rehnquist tried to weave his view of the 14th amendment into his opinion for Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, but it was rejected by the other justices.

He voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans

Still his federalism doctrine was more focused on limited the federal government and resolving individual issues within the states in America.

So in reality he was all for making decisions that involved the federal government and state government

Thus the problem with judicial activism it can mean different things to different people

when it suits repubs they are all for it but when it goes against them then they complain

well he was a good repub and he was against Roe VS Wade

There is only one "law of the land."

And you don't know what that is.


It isn't caselaw, nor the Supreme Court decisions.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Already quoted the actual authority it says in plain English that the supreme Court has all jurisdiction in all federal matters.

Here's reality.

“Of the two religion clauses- the one forbidding an establishment of religion and the other guaranteeing its free exercise- it is the establishment clause that has suffered the most abuse. Both the text and the history of its adoption show conclusively that what was to be place beyond Congress’s power was the establishment of churches….

The anti-establishment clause manifested no hostility to organized religion as such nor any intention to forbid Congress from aiding religion generally.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


Where does your citation allow this?



Bork describes the period before Everson, in this way:
“Vibrant religion there was, but no hint of theocracy or religious war. Now, under the tutelage of the Court and the American Civil Liberties Union, religious symbols and speech must everywhere be suppressed.

…so antagonistic to religion because religion…stands in the way of the moral relativism to which the Court seems dedicated.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


I don't believe you'll be able to answer.

Your claim that the 11th amendment means anything other then no suits by foreign powers us ridiculous and so is thus claim.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Already quoted the actual authority it says in plain English that the supreme Court has all jurisdiction in all federal matters.

Here's reality.

“Of the two religion clauses- the one forbidding an establishment of religion and the other guaranteeing its free exercise- it is the establishment clause that has suffered the most abuse. Both the text and the history of its adoption show conclusively that what was to be place beyond Congress’s power was the establishment of churches….

The anti-establishment clause manifested no hostility to organized religion as such nor any intention to forbid Congress from aiding religion generally.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


Where does your citation allow this?



Bork describes the period before Everson, in this way:
“Vibrant religion there was, but no hint of theocracy or religious war. Now, under the tutelage of the Court and the American Civil Liberties Union, religious symbols and speech must everywhere be suppressed.

…so antagonistic to religion because religion…stands in the way of the moral relativism to which the Court seems dedicated.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


I don't believe you'll be able to answer.

Your claim that the 11th amendment means anything other then no suits by foreign powers us ridiculous and so is thus claim.

I claim that the Supreme Court has stolen jurisdiction that it was never allotted by the Constitution.


That's what I claim.


Insightful individuals agree.


“ The function of law in a society, at least a democratic society, is to express, cultivate, and enforce the values of the society as understood by the majority of its people.

In our society today, this function has been perverted. Much of our most basic law, largely taken out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives by the Supreme Court, functions instead to overthrow or undermine traditional values, customs, and practices through the mechanism of judge-made constitutional law divorced from the Constitution.

The system of decentralized representative self-government with separation of powers created by the Constitution has been converted by the Court into government on basic issues of domestic social policy by a tiny judicial oligarchy—by majority vote of a committee of nine lawyers, unelected and holding office for life, making policy decisions for the nation as a whole from Washington, D.C.”
Lino A. Graglia, A. W. Walker Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



"...the Supreme Court, functions instead to overthrow or undermine traditional values, customs, and practices through the mechanism of judge-made constitutional law divorced from the Constitution."

Hence the title of the thread.

 

[Kilroy2]

Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court agrees to hear about 100-150 of the more than 7,000 cases that it is asked to review each year.

judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, if it is not found within the text of the Constitution itself

Do presidents want to act like Kings under the presumption that there actions are supported by all the people but in reality it is supported by some of the people.

We the people is not some of the people

Some consider the court to be oligarchy rule but its better than being ruled by one man

Those who cry foul are just trying to change the Constitution but then again that is why you have amendments

The court members are chosen by the President and approved by congress

On cases that they want to hear, they are the final word by a group of people instead of one man who is beholding to the people who elected him and if he wants to be reelected then he has to please them

Somebody has to stand up to a rouge President who has no experience in government but basically won a popularity contest

They are there for life and hold a very high position and you would hope that they can put political bias aside which I really doubt that Trump can do

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,

Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme

Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate

source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that

originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original

Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some

authority to the federal government and have reserved authority

not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

[Liberal judicial activism] 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."




Can I get an 'Amen'!!!

You seem to have misinterpreted that one as he does not makes a strong to your position as his meaning is pretty deep but I will give you a hint

Understand what judicial activism is will put it in more prospective for you and it does not support you opinion that court is overstepping their authority


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."

Ideally The courts are there to reign in the Congress and the President when they step on constitutional issues and rights of government, people etc.

with all the partisan hacking gone on it is up to the Supreme Court to not have political bias but to rise above it but it is hard for some of them.

that why I really would like to see a more balanced court with equal number of both democrats and republicans and the Chief justice and be either one but is the ultimate arbitrator of fairness and should be the least partisan



The Supreme court is a part of the government

Article III of the Constitution identifies the third branch of our separated government, empowering the courts to decide cases and limiting them to the exercise of a certain kind of authority.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

Can it be interrupted in different way , yeah if you are deeply partisian

Laws that are struck down by the court can be rewritten to where it becomes acceptable to the court

Balance of power

catch it and understand it

In the my opinion the Constitution is a legal document between the people and the government

Can you keep all the people happy

NO

English is not my first language....but it appears that you don't have even a first one.


Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.



The Supreme Court itself, as it stands today, is unconstitutional.

Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.

Just because you can speak English, does not mean you can understand English

You quote the 11 amendment well for a person who is never wrong you got this one wrong

Claim that this supports you position but it doesn't

(The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789)

This basically means that a foreign state cannot bring a suite in law before the court as a foreign state is another country and it is pretty clear what they mean.

but your boy Rehnquist did not like that interpretation and took it one step further and wanted to get involved in suits with citizens within a US state

Your boy tried to limit the federal government and even got involved in State squabbles

Rehnquist tried to weave his view of the 14th amendment into his opinion for Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, but it was rejected by the other justices.

He voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans

Still his federalism doctrine was more focused on limited the federal government and resolving individual issues within the states in America.

So in reality he was all for making decisions that involved the federal government and state government

Thus the problem with judicial activism it can mean different things to different people

when it suits repubs they are all for it but when it goes against them then they complain

well he was a good repub and he was against Roe VS Wade

There is only one "law of the land."

And you don't know what that is.


It isn't caselaw, nor the Supreme Court decisions.

The constitution and the laws of the US, treaties made by the US are the supreme law of the land well that what the constitution says

Yet the Court has held that any law that Congress makes that is contrary to the Constitution should not stand. the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

So any law that Congress makes that is not meet the standards of the Constitution can be go thru "Judicial Review"

Doesn't Change anything as your boy Rehnquist had no problem doing this

You should read his opinions if you are that enamored with him''

 

[Kilroy2]

Come on Annie

It is u who do not know what the federalist papers are

They are just an opinion that they had 200 years ago that you are trying to regurgitate , Alexander Hamilton, yeah the original federalist papers where in defense of the constitution

People like yourself see it differently and try to interpret it

Hamilton wrote a harshly critical pamphlet attacking Burr. In the 1800 election, he temporarily cast aside his dislike of Jefferson to engineer the defeat of fellow New Yorker and Federalist Burr (who he deeply distrusted), fueling a hatred in Burr that would lead to their deadly duel just four years later.

keep trying Annie but please add some substance

If you ask Trump what the federalist paper is he would probably challenge you to a dual

Donald Trump claimed he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters."

Did you read them.


Of course you didn't.

Nor do you understand their significance.

The federalist paper do not mean nothing to as they are not the law of the land

just an opinion that when its convenient then you quote it and when its not you ignore it


It may mean something to you and your cronies to shout out with your bullhorn but in reality

The Rehnquist (repub) Court

Texas v. Johnson (1989): In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Brennan, the Court struck down a state law that prevented the burning of the American flag. The court held that the act of burning the flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. In a subsequent case, United States v. Eichman (1990), the court struck down a similar federal statute.

United States v. Lopez (1995): In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Rehnquist, the court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as an unconstitutional extension of Congressional power.

So he didn't have a problem striking that Congressional law as unconstitutional

Do you agree with thsy decision

You see you want to claim that they can do a judicial review when it the law supports your cause

but when it goes against your cause then you scream "The Federalist are coming"

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Already quoted the actual authority it says in plain English that the supreme Court has all jurisdiction in all federal matters.

Here's reality.

“Of the two religion clauses- the one forbidding an establishment of religion and the other guaranteeing its free exercise- it is the establishment clause that has suffered the most abuse. Both the text and the history of its adoption show conclusively that what was to be place beyond Congress’s power was the establishment of churches….

The anti-establishment clause manifested no hostility to organized religion as such nor any intention to forbid Congress from aiding religion generally.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


Where does your citation allow this?



Bork describes the period before Everson, in this way:
“Vibrant religion there was, but no hint of theocracy or religious war. Now, under the tutelage of the Court and the American Civil Liberties Union, religious symbols and speech must everywhere be suppressed.

…so antagonistic to religion because religion…stands in the way of the moral relativism to which the Court seems dedicated.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


I don't believe you'll be able to answer.

Your claim that the 11th amendment means anything other then no suits by foreign powers us ridiculous and so is thus claim.

I claim that the Supreme Court has stolen jurisdiction that it was never allotted by the Constitution.


That's what I claim.


Insightful individuals agree.


“ The function of law in a society, at least a democratic society, is to express, cultivate, and enforce the values of the society as understood by the majority of its people.

In our society today, this function has been perverted. Much of our most basic law, largely taken out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives by the Supreme Court, functions instead to overthrow or undermine traditional values, customs, and practices through the mechanism of judge-made constitutional law divorced from the Constitution.

The system of decentralized representative self-government with separation of powers created by the Constitution has been converted by the Court into government on basic issues of domestic social policy by a tiny judicial oligarchy—by majority vote of a committee of nine lawyers, unelected and holding office for life, making policy decisions for the nation as a whole from Washington, D.C.”
Lino A. Graglia, A. W. Walker Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



"...the Supreme Court, functions instead to overthrow or undermine traditional values, customs, and practices through the mechanism of judge-made constitutional law divorced from the Constitution."

Hence the title of the thread.

The Constitution does not say what you claim. It is VERY clear in standard English even a 6 year old could read and understand. Article 3 grants to the Supreme Court jurisdiction in ALL cases INVOLVING the Federal Government, its Government officials, between 2 or more States and between the States and the Federal Government. The 11t Amendment makes it clear that no foreign Court holds sway in the US or its dealings.

 

[PoliticalChic]

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf



"The ultimate source of authority in this Nation,

Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme

Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate

source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that

originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original

Constitution and by later amending it. They have granted some

authority to the federal government and have reserved authority

not granted it to the states or to the people individually.

[Liberal judicial activism] 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."




Can I get an 'Amen'!!!

You seem to have misinterpreted that one as he does not makes a strong to your position as his meaning is pretty deep but I will give you a hint

Understand what judicial activism is will put it in more prospective for you and it does not support you opinion that court is overstepping their authority


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."

Ideally The courts are there to reign in the Congress and the President when they step on constitutional issues and rights of government, people etc.

with all the partisan hacking gone on it is up to the Supreme Court to not have political bias but to rise above it but it is hard for some of them.

that why I really would like to see a more balanced court with equal number of both democrats and republicans and the Chief justice and be either one but is the ultimate arbitrator of fairness and should be the least partisan



The Supreme court is a part of the government

Article III of the Constitution identifies the third branch of our separated government, empowering the courts to decide cases and limiting them to the exercise of a certain kind of authority.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

Can it be interrupted in different way , yeah if you are deeply partisian

Laws that are struck down by the court can be rewritten to where it becomes acceptable to the court

Balance of power

catch it and understand it

In the my opinion the Constitution is a legal document between the people and the government

Can you keep all the people happy

NO

English is not my first language....but it appears that you don't have even a first one.


Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.



The Supreme Court itself, as it stands today, is unconstitutional.

Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

Rehnquist clearly says....CLEARLY SAYS....that judges have no business engaging in judicial activism, and that any of their decisions not based on the language of the Constitution, are bogus.

Just because you can speak English, does not mean you can understand English

You quote the 11 amendment well for a person who is never wrong you got this one wrong

Claim that this supports you position but it doesn't

(The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789)

This basically means that a foreign state cannot bring a suite in law before the court as a foreign state is another country and it is pretty clear what they mean.

but your boy Rehnquist did not like that interpretation and took it one step further and wanted to get involved in suits with citizens within a US state

Your boy tried to limit the federal government and even got involved in State squabbles

Rehnquist tried to weave his view of the 14th amendment into his opinion for Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer, but it was rejected by the other justices.

He voted against the expansion of school desegregation plans

Still his federalism doctrine was more focused on limited the federal government and resolving individual issues within the states in America.

So in reality he was all for making decisions that involved the federal government and state government

Thus the problem with judicial activism it can mean different things to different people

when it suits repubs they are all for it but when it goes against them then they complain

well he was a good repub and he was against Roe VS Wade

There is only one "law of the land."

And you don't know what that is.


It isn't caselaw, nor the Supreme Court decisions.

The constitution and the laws of the US, treaties made by the US are the supreme law of the land well that what the constitution says

Yet the Court has held that any law that Congress makes that is contrary to the Constitution should not stand. the Court also established its authority to strike down state laws found to be in violation of the Constitution.

So any law that Congress makes that is not meet the standards of the Constitution can be go thru "Judicial Review"

Doesn't Change anything as your boy Rehnquist had no problem doing this

You should read his opinions if you are that enamored with him''

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.

. Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

In the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia Marshall decided 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.
The villain knew better.



This was similar to a recent President announcing that “ I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and this meant that he, as Marshall did, could ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall authorized ‘judicial review, and “made it a reality in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 by invalidating an insignificant provision of a federal statute in an otherwise insignificant case.

Marshall read a sentence of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, as adding to the original jurisdiction granted the Court by the Constitution, although the sentence does not even mention original jurisdiction.

Judicial review was born in sin and has rarely risen above the circumstances of its birth.”
Professor Lino Graglia,
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

Already quoted the actual authority it says in plain English that the supreme Court has all jurisdiction in all federal matters.

Here's reality.

“Of the two religion clauses- the one forbidding an establishment of religion and the other guaranteeing its free exercise- it is the establishment clause that has suffered the most abuse. Both the text and the history of its adoption show conclusively that what was to be place beyond Congress’s power was the establishment of churches….

The anti-establishment clause manifested no hostility to organized religion as such nor any intention to forbid Congress from aiding religion generally.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


Where does your citation allow this?



Bork describes the period before Everson, in this way:
“Vibrant religion there was, but no hint of theocracy or religious war. Now, under the tutelage of the Court and the American Civil Liberties Union, religious symbols and speech must everywhere be suppressed.

…so antagonistic to religion because religion…stands in the way of the moral relativism to which the Court seems dedicated.”
Robert Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values”


I don't believe you'll be able to answer.

Your claim that the 11th amendment means anything other then no suits by foreign powers us ridiculous and so is thus claim.

I claim that the Supreme Court has stolen jurisdiction that it was never allotted by the Constitution.


That's what I claim.


Insightful individuals agree.


“ The function of law in a society, at least a democratic society, is to express, cultivate, and enforce the values of the society as understood by the majority of its people.

In our society today, this function has been perverted. Much of our most basic law, largely taken out of the hands of the people and their elected representatives by the Supreme Court, functions instead to overthrow or undermine traditional values, customs, and practices through the mechanism of judge-made constitutional law divorced from the Constitution.

The system of decentralized representative self-government with separation of powers created by the Constitution has been converted by the Court into government on basic issues of domestic social policy by a tiny judicial oligarchy—by majority vote of a committee of nine lawyers, unelected and holding office for life, making policy decisions for the nation as a whole from Washington, D.C.”
Lino A. Graglia, A. W. Walker Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



"...the Supreme Court, functions instead to overthrow or undermine traditional values, customs, and practices through the mechanism of judge-made constitutional law divorced from the Constitution."

Hence the title of the thread.

The Constitution does not say what you claim. It is VERY clear in standard English even a 6 year old could read and understand. Article 3 grants to the Supreme Court jurisdiction in ALL cases INVOLVING the Federal Government, its Government officials, between 2 or more States and between the States and the Federal Government. The 11t Amendment makes it clear that no foreign Court holds sway in the US or its dealings.

Glad you returned for further instruction.


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.

. Marshall worked tirelessly to expand the power of the federal government.
The 11th amendment stood in his way.

‘The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.’ 11th amendment, 1789




“The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III. “
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman

In the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia Marshall decided 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.
The villain knew better.



This was similar to a recent President announcing that “ I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone,” and this meant that he, as Marshall did, could ignore the restrictions of the Constitution.

Chief Justice John Marshall authorized ‘judicial review, and “made it a reality in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 by invalidating an insignificant provision of a federal statute in an otherwise insignificant case.

Marshall read a sentence of Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, as adding to the original jurisdiction granted the Court by the Constitution, although the sentence does not even mention original jurisdiction.

Judicial review was born in sin and has rarely risen above the circumstances of its birth.”
Professor Lino Graglia,
https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

Come on Annie

It is u who do not know what the federalist papers are

They are just an opinion that they had 200 years ago that you are trying to regurgitate , Alexander Hamilton, yeah the original federalist papers where in defense of the constitution

People like yourself see it differently and try to interpret it

Hamilton wrote a harshly critical pamphlet attacking Burr. In the 1800 election, he temporarily cast aside his dislike of Jefferson to engineer the defeat of fellow New Yorker and Federalist Burr (who he deeply distrusted), fueling a hatred in Burr that would lead to their deadly duel just four years later.

keep trying Annie but please add some substance

If you ask Trump what the federalist paper is he would probably challenge you to a dual

Donald Trump claimed he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody" and not "lose any voters."

Did you read them.


Of course you didn't.

Nor do you understand their significance.

The federalist paper do not mean nothing to as they are not the law of the land

just an opinion that when its convenient then you quote it and when its not you ignore it


It may mean something to you and your cronies to shout out with your bullhorn but in reality

The Rehnquist (repub) Court

Texas v. Johnson (1989): In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Brennan, the Court struck down a state law that prevented the burning of the American flag. The court held that the act of burning the flag is protected speech under the First Amendment. In a subsequent case, United States v. Eichman (1990), the court struck down a similar federal statute.

United States v. Lopez (1995): In a 5-4 decision written by Justice Rehnquist, the court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as an unconstitutional extension of Congressional power.

So he didn't have a problem striking that Congressional law as unconstitutional

Do you agree with thsy decision

You see you want to claim that they can do a judicial review when it the law supports your cause

but when it goes against your cause then you scream "The Federalist are coming"

"The federalist paper do not mean nothing (sic)"



Unbeknownst to you, you just stated that the Federalist Papers, which explain the intent of the Constitution, does mean a great deal.


Learn how to write in correct English before you post again.

 

[John Hazelwood]

The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.