This was posted on

[FormerOstrich]

congress.org. I am intereseted in others take on this. I have read others predictions about the TS case paving the way for undermining the judicial branch. A couple of points in this "article" contradict what I thought.

There are two little-known ways of "checking" dangerous Supreme Court decisions. The precept of “checks and balances” is little understood by far too many Americans and hated by others.

1) Article 111, Section II of the U.S. Constitution empowers the national Congress (simple majority of both houses) to limit or even nullify Supreme Court appellate decisions ,
2) Another “check” is that of the Executive Branch refusing to enforce a Supreme Court decision. President Andrew Jackson (whether or not one agrees with the merits of the case) did such.
...
There is yet another consideration. Historically the Supreme Court either was to render a decision on a “particular” case OR remand said case back to the states if the Court judged it was not a "federal" (or better stated "national") matter.

Furthermore, when a lawful Supreme Court decision was made, it was to be the “law of the case” -- NOT the “law of the land”! That decision could be used as a precedent for future cases, to be sure. The recent SC decision concerning "minors'" convicted of murder seems to perpetuate the nonsense of “law of the land”.

However, the real issue hinted at previously that has escaped virtually everyone is this: The aforementioned case is NOT a “federal” i.e. national matter regardless of what the Supreme Court or other misinformed “experts” say. As Thomas Jefferson stated we have far too many exercising “will” instead of “judgment”.

This case should have been remanded back to the states. This is part and parcel of the concept of “federalism” -- unknown and alien to most Americans thanks to our national media and public schools.

We Americans need to awaken! Pretentious trousered or skirted apes dressed in black robes does not justice make.


http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/alert/?alertid=7156981&content_dir=ua_congressorg

[punpirate]

1. Well, this sort of ignores...

... Marbury v. Madison, which has been a fundamental of the court system for 200 years.

The right wing happily goes their merry way when they get most of what they want--which has been the case for most of the last twenty-five years. But, this latest bunch in Congress and the White House want it all.

My own feeling, as I've said before, is that even those crusty old conservative judges won't stand for having their nuts cut off. They'll fight back, and they can do that just by entertaining many cases that they might not have otherwise, to the considerable embarrassment of both Congress and the White House.

[TomClash]

2. They've always wanted to reverse Marbury

which, if implemented, would basically end the Republic as we know it.

This is one of many upcoming tactics we may see in light of the Schiavo case - the limitations on Supreme Court appellate jurisdiction under the "exceptions and regulations" clause.

[punpirate]

3. Yup... that's the heart of the...

... so-called "activist judge" problem they're always complaining about--except when it's their activist judge ruling in their favor.

Helluva time for Bush to get a couple of picks for the Supreme Court....

[mmonk]

4. They are going to try various angles

to get control of the court system. The "nuclear" option is one attempt, the TS is probably related in some manner I haven't truely gleemed yet, etc. Bottom line, if they are successful, we will live in a virtual dictatorship for a long time. It's probably when my family will decide to exit.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Hmm...

> the TS is probably related in some manner I haven't truely gleemed
> yet

It is related, but not they way they'd want it to be. What they've managed to do is to make a very tangible, emotional, and easily-understood public display of their plans for the judiciary. They've accidentally taken what is to most Americans a very boring and esoteric bit of governance (judicial appointments and separation of powers, specifically between congress and the judiciary) and made it applicable to their daily lives. The only way they were ever going to get their way with the judiciary was by slipping it under the radar as simply a minor row over parliamentary procedure. They no longer have that option, and I'm sure they're quite surprised to find that something like 60% - 80% of the public thinks that they're wrong on the Schiavo thing. I do believe the days of the congressional Republicans being able to label the dems as "obstructionist" with impunity are over.

What is it with the Republicans in congress, anyway? Any time they managed to bumble into a position of power, they make some gross error in judgement which splits the party and completey obliterates the gains they've made. I suppose it's a natural by-product of reactionary thought.

[mmonk]

6. they tend to overreach

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. They don't just tend to overreach.

They seem to have this intrinsic desire to overreach, as if they're only really happy when they're going completely fucking nuts.

[TexasSissy]

8. (1) It's gobbledygook (does anyone understand what that author

just wrote?); (2) It assumes the readers are stupid - some are, some aren't; (3) It's disrespectful of the justice system.

This looks to be a diatribe, temper tantrum thing. Thank God this person is not in control of the country (as s/he no doubt thought s/he was before the TS case).


Whew. The law has prevailed. Thank God.