The Supreme Court Is The Last Word On Nothing

[skews13]

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Is the Final Word on Nothing (Published 2022)

It, too, can be checked and balanced.

www.nytimes.com

Stay tuned. There are other remedies other than adding seats to reign in an out of control activist court. All of them Constitutional.

 

[SeaMajor7]

"Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction"

That doesn't seem Constitutional via separation of powers.

Just ANOTHER weak OPINON hit piece from the failing NYT, and you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Is the Final Word on Nothing (Published 2022)

It, too, can be checked and balanced.

www.nytimes.com

Stay tuned. There are other remedies other than adding seats to reign in an out of control activist court. All of them Constitutional.

SO, make a law... Your pipe dream on ending the filibuster is dead. Your dream of getting 60 votes in the senate for your wish list is dead. Court rules say a simple majority not a super majority. Separation of powers tells us that congress has no authority over how the court makes decisions. To do so breaches the separations of powers.

 

[skews13]

"Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction"

That doesn't seem Constitutional via separation of powers.

Just ANOTHER weak OPINON hit piece from the failing NYT, and you.

It's actually in the Constitution.

 

[Billy_Bob]

It's actually in the Constitution.

Your interpretation. Are you going to make me show you how ignorant this point of view is and why the separations of powers stop this?

 

[SeaMajor7]

It's actually in the Constitution.

Sure it is, right next to the rights to abortion.

 

[Auld Phart]

It's actually in the Constitution.

So is Separation of CHurch and State.


Oops, no, it isn't.


That is another Supreme court decision.

 

[Billy_Bob]

the first amendment makes it unlawful for the state to create a "state church". IT does not however, stop a person from public display of his or her deeply held religious belief in government spaces.

"

First Amendment​

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The Chicoms certainly do want us to think that, anyway.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Is the Final Word on Nothing (Published 2022)

It, too, can be checked and balanced.

www.nytimes.com

Stay tuned. There are other remedies other than adding seats to reign in an out of control activist court. All of them Constitutional.

Cherry pick much?

Article 3, section 1:
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.
Section 2:
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;
Section 3:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

The Mississippi case is what overturned Roe v Wade. The NY concealed carry case involved a state as well.
What exactly prevents the SCOTUS from ruling on these or any other times a state tries to do something against the Constitution?
You're legal reasoning is based on flawed logic

 

[SweetSue92]

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Is the Final Word on Nothing (Published 2022)

It, too, can be checked and balanced.

www.nytimes.com

Stay tuned. There are other remedies other than adding seats to reign in an out of control activist court. All of them Constitutional.

The Supreme Court is not the final word because they are but ONE of the three branches of govt. Leftists have such a hard time with this because, not being able to get their radical agenda passed by Congress, they relied on activist courts to do so.

Nope.

Back to the way it was intended to be. Pass. Laws.

Or cry about it. Either way.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Is the Final Word on Nothing (Published 2022)

It, too, can be checked and balanced.

www.nytimes.com

Stay tuned. There are other remedies other than adding seats to reign in an out of control activist court. All of them Constitutional.

We get it that you're mad that the SC has overturned and ruled that they're not going to sanction the killing of an unborn child. Too bad. Go try to codify it in your state.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Is the Final Word on Nothing (Published 2022)

It, too, can be checked and balanced.

www.nytimes.com

Stay tuned. There are other remedies other than adding seats to reign in an out of control activist court. All of them Constitutional.

I agree that under Article III, Section 2, Congress has the power to remove whatever it choses from the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. There was often talk among pro-lifers of Congress doing just that with the issue of abortion. The fact that congress never did take that issue from the USSC, no matter how large the GOP majority, told me that the pre-Trump Republicans were pretty comfortable with Roe v. Wade allowing them to pontificate about abortion without ever actually doing anything about it.

But, now that the USSC has effectively removed itself from that issue, I'm not sure how Art. III, Sect 2 could be applied. What would you envision congress forcing the court to do exactly? Do you believe that the Congress can force the Supreme Court to take another abortion case and this time re-instate the Roe V. Wade ruling?

 

[Lesh]

The Supreme Court is not the final word because they are but ONE of the three branches of govt. Leftists have such a hard time with this because, not being able to get their radical agenda passed by Congress, they relied on activist courts to do so.

Nope.

Back to the way it was intended to be. Pass. Laws.

Or cry about it. Either way.

The "radical agenda" is that of the existing Court.

One that strips rights from citizens
Strips states from being able to regulate public safety
Strips Executive Agencies from doing their job

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The "radical agenda" is that of the existing Court.

One that strips rights from citizens
Strips states from being able to regulate public safety
Strips Executive Agencies from doing their job

Only in lib land is it radical to stop killing human life.

 

[Lesh]

No exception for rape or incest

Forced to bear a child you KNOW will face a lifetime of deformity and pain

THAT is “radical”

 

[kyzr]

No exception for rape or incest
Forced to bear a child you KNOW will face a lifetime of deformity and pain
THAT is “radical”

If the mom puts the special needs baby up for adoption, and no one adopts it, what happens? Will we have hospitals with wards of the state filled with special needs babies?

 

[BluesLegend]

Make all the laws you want you communist puke Dems, the SCOTUS will overrule them as unconstitutional. Tissue?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Let’s start here: Article 3 of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court “original jurisdiction” in all cases affecting “Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party.” That part is obviously in effect, although most cases between states occur in the lower federal courts established by Congress. The Constitution then states that in all other cases, “the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction.” This, too, is in full effect.

But then the Constitution tells us that the court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to “such Exceptions” and “under such Regulations” as “the Congress shall make.”

This is where it gets interesting. The court’s appellate jurisdiction accounts for virtually everything it touches. And the Constitution says that Congress can regulate the nature of that jurisdiction. Congress can strip the court of its ability to hear certain cases, or it can mandate new rules for how the court decides cases where it has appellate jurisdiction. And as I recently mentioned, it can even tell the court that it needs a supermajority of justices to declare a federal law or previous decision unconstitutional.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Is the Final Word on Nothing (Published 2022)

It, too, can be checked and balanced.

www.nytimes.com

Stay tuned. There are other remedies other than adding seats to reign in an out of control activist court. All of them Constitutional.

This is a classic example of an ounce of knowledge and a pound of stupidity.

Congress has the power to legislate certain limitations to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. But that does not mean that Congress can wholly control the court, setting its rules, etc. The constitution vests the judicial power of the United States in the Supreme Court, and whatever inferior courts may be created. Judicial power is not created by Congress, and it is not vested to Congress.

While Congress has jurisdiction stripping powers, in that it can (for example) declare that bankruptcy courts only have power to decide bankruptcy cases (this became a big deal in the Anna Nicole Smith case where the Supreme Court held that the bankruptcy court exceeded its limits when granting Smith a part of her dead husband's estate), it does not have the power to dictate how judicial power is exercised. Standards for decision making are an exercise of judicial power which cannot be legislated.

The federal judiciary has jurisdiction over a variety of cases that, by and large, logically fall under federal jurisdiction as opposed to state jurisdiction. These basically come down to cases that based on federal law, cases that involve interstate disputes, and cases that involve international disputes. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in certain cases, and appellate jurisdiction in others. Congress can indeed strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear a variety of appeals. It could even redirect appellate review to different venues, such as state courts. But Congress cannot dictate to the court how to conduct reviews. Because the how is a matter of judicial activity; it is an exercise of judicial power.

The clause cited by the article is tragically misrepresented by the article. At best, it's a desperate attempt to reach a pre-ordained conclusion. Most likely, it's sensationalist garbage designed to do nothing more than generate clicks that lead to revenue despite the fact that the author knows full well that the ideas presented are hot garbage. It's intellectually irresponsible on its face.

Moreover, even if we were to agree with the article's premise, the proposal made by the article is both sloppy and dangerous. If the article's theory were accepted, what we would have would be a bug, not a feature, of the constitutional prescribed form of government in our country. It would be an imperfection to be corrected, not exploited for political convenience. To exploit imperfections for political convenience will only cause further harm to our country.

Just imagine if Democrats gained more solid control over Congress and legislatively stripped the Supreme Court of appellate power to hear cases involving gun regulations. That might work out well to prevent the Supreme Court from overturning gun regulations in New York City. It might leave the California Supreme Court the final arbiter of whether California state laws regulating guns is constitutional. But what happens when a district judge finds the law unconstitutional during a motion to supress evidence hearing? All of a sudden, state and federal courts will be applying different standards for the same United States constitution. What's worse is that federal courts in different districts and circuits will eventually have divergent approaches to interpreting the constitution, and there will be no way to establish uniformity because the Supreme Court will lack jurisdiction to hear the cases. And naturally, when Congress changes hands, a Republican controlled Congress will be able to strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to here challenges to state laws that restrict abortion.

All of this tit-for-tat will accomplish nothing, ultimately, except to leave each state free to violate the constitution in its own preferred ways, without avenue for review. It will, in short, create a mechanism for state nullification of the constitution.

 

[Lesh]

If the mom puts the special needs baby up for adoption, and no one adopts it, what happens? Will we have hospitals with wards of the state filled with special needs babies?

You tell me…