GOP candidates would cut federal judges’ power

[alp227]

Source: AP

Most of the Republican presidential candidates want to wipe away lifetime tenure for federal judges, cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supreme Court rulings on constitutional issues.

Any one of those proposals would significantly undercut the independence and authority of federal judges. Many of the ideas have been advanced before in campaigns to court conservative voters.

This time, though, six of the eight GOP candidates are backing some or all of those limits on judges, even though judges appointed by Republican presidents hold a majority on the Supreme Court and throughout the federal system.

A group that works for judicial independence says the proposals would make judges “accountable to politicians, not the Constitution.”

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-candidates-would-cut-federal-judges-power/2011/10/23/gIQA5u4Z9L_singlePage.html

[Cirque du So-What]

1. So much for 'upholding the Constitution'

Advocating chicanery such as this *should* be grounds for impeachment.

[Vincardog]

11. The Constitution says that Congress can limit the SCOTUS's power.

[MFrohike]

13. Cite that section please

I think you're confusing Congress' power to limit appellate jurisdiction with a genuine limitation on power. Just because Congress may have the power to limit jurisdiction to the SC does not mean that the court can't use habeas to work around that limitation.

[Vincardog]

19. Article III section 2 "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have

appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make. "

[MFrohike]

20. Yep, appellate jurisdiction

Congress rarely limits appellate jurisdiction and it wouldn't take much effort for a court to invalidate the limitation if absolutely necessary. After all, if the limitation contradicts another section of the constitution, it gives the court an opening.

[No Elephants]

22. That doesn't mean that Congress can tell the SCOTUS which way to hold in a case or a

group of cases.

Regulations are typically administrative.

[No Elephants]

21. Congress can limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but

attempts to do so have usually been very cynical. And, I don't think Congress can constitutionally limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court as to the specific things cited in Article III.

There must be some obstacle to it, or FDR would have gotten Congress to remove jurisdiction to hear appeals on his New Deal legislation, instead of coming up with his court-packing plan?

[cppuddy]

15. Looks like they want a civil war. I guess they will get one.

[OHdem10]

2. Laying groundwork for a Dictatorship?????

[sakabatou]

3. Yup

[No Elephants]

23. It's what the DLC seems to want to. Guess it's easiest to control one person

than to control Congress or a Court.

Dictatorship is something of an exaggeration--maybe--but Unitary Executive may not be far from the mark.

[wordpix]

4. would not mind if they start with Scalia and SCOTUS :)

not that they would

[Scuba]

5. GOP candidates would outsource our courts to Haliburton if they could. n/t

[leftyohiolib]

6. wellthe 3 branches are supposed to be equal but

the supreme court seems to top the other two. but i think the gop feels they are gonna lose big in 2012 and we could have 3 new judges in the 2012 term. so if they start now to whittle away the power of the judges they might be able to hold back the progressive agenda.
the koch bros probably watched the debate and thought " better dust off plan-b"

[No Elephants]

24. Not really. The Constitution is what "tops" the other two.

And the SCOTUS occasionally gets to say what the Constitution means.

Congress and the President can address any issue whenever they want.

The Supreme Court is very limited as to what it can decide. It can only decide the individual cases that come to it. And its own rules limit it even further.

However, it can hold a law or an Executive unconstitutional, if absolutely necessary to decide the case before it. And its rules about standing severely limit the number of cases protesting a law or Executive action that it will decide. And its own rules also say that they pretty much have to twist themselves into pretzels before holding something uncontitutional.

I think you are absolutely right about the GOP believing that a Democratic Presidential win in 2012 is likely, though. Their field doesn't appeal to them, let alone to anyone else. And most of them seem in it to raise the sales of their books and speaking fees more than because they have a realistic shot at the Presidency.

Clowns.

[judgegblue]

7. Why would the GOP want to destroy their strongest ally?

The SCOTUS is already controlled by the rightwing. What more do they want? The Court gave them the Bush presidency and has approved the purchase of elections by declaring that corporations are citizens with the free speech rights to spend unlimited amounts on political propaganda in order to elect their lap dog candidates.

[jwirr]

8. If that happens we will spend most of our time fighting a battle for

a descent court. It will be like what is happening now only worse.

[Little Tich]

9. Please notice that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman have not attacked federal judges in their campaigns

according to the article. I think this is significant, especially when it comes to Mitt Romney, who I think is the most probable candidate anyway.

[mulsh]

10. Brilliant, proposing doing something a President has no ability to

do. Love their strategy. I love Newt's idea of hauling judges before congress. As president? way to go professor G.

[SoapBox]

12. The Facisct GOPBagger State.

...they want to rule your every moment.

Period.

[MFrohike]

14. Silly arguments

Given that all of their proposals would require constitutional amendments to impose, it's safe to say this is just campaign rhetoric. Even the idea of cutting judicial budgets would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. No Supreme Court, unless it was institutionally suicidal, would ever side with Congress on such an issue.

It's funny. The GOP candidates are busy trying to resurrect the lost (and unmentioned) legacy of Thomas Jefferson. Last I checked, minus FDR's court-packing threats, he was the last guy to actually attack, and remove from office, federal judges over partisan politics.

[BumRushDaShow]

16. "...allow Congress to override Supreme Court rulings on constitutional issues."

Ummmm.... they already have the power to do that - write a new law that DOES pass Constitutional muster. :crazy:

Time for the hook! This crew has been performing poorly on the stage WAY too long.

[AsahinaKimi]

17. Republicans threw out the Constitution a long time ago..

They want as much power as they can get, and many of them simply want to install biblical law. Dangerous times are ahead.

[meow2u3]

18. Be careful what you wish for, repunks

You just might get exactly what you want if this bill passes, the Democrats take power, and then passes legislation that absolutely neuters the corporate, hand-picked judges the rethugs installed.
:evilgrin:

[Odin2005]

25. The RWers praise the constitution while they wipe their asses with it.

[Dover]

26. GOP candidates would cut federal judges' power

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Most of the Republican presidential candidates want to wipe away lifetime tenure for federal judges, cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supreme Court rulings on constitutional issues.

Any one of those proposals would significantly undercut the independence and authority of federal judges. Many of the ideas have been advanced before in campaigns to court conservative voters.

This time, though, six of the eight GOP candidates are backing some or all of those limits on judges, even though judges appointed by Republican presidents hold a majority on the Supreme Court and throughout the federal system.

A group that works for judicial independence says the proposals would make judges "accountable to politicians, not the Constitution."



Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_REPUBLICAN_CANDIDATES_JUDGES?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=POLITICS&TEMPLATE=

[ejpoeta]

27. the only changes i would like to see are to make the supreme court have to follow

the same rules as all the other judges. it shouldn't be voluntary. beyond that we want an independent judicial system.

[Turbineguy]

28. Presumably the Judges could do what they wanted

as long as they had the title "Reverend" as well.

[madrchsod]

29. they have become so desperate even the unthinkable....

becomes their latest idea to save their ass.

it really is sad to see just how far the republican party has fallen.

[AlbertCat]

30. cut the budgets of courts that displease them or allow Congress to override Supreme Court rulings...

... on constitutional issues.


What GREAT ideas! It shows they really know what this country is about!




do I need this? :sarcasm:


The GOP has nothing... nothing at all to offer.

[Star]

31. The Shock Doctrine

Please read this book and you will understand that this is just another step in the direction of Milton Friedman's "Free-market Capitalism" economics.

Those who subscribe to this economic theory believe that all regulations must be taken off businesses so the "free-market" can flourish and make us all rich. They also believe that business should basically run government. Neutering the judicial system is a necessary step in this direction, since many of the things that are needed are clearly illegal or unconstitutional. They must ensure that the legislation they pass will not be stopped by the judiciary.

Of course, anywhere that this theory has been implemented, it has led to super rich folks at the top, and poverty-stricken people everywhere else. It also required an extreme police state to keep the "masses" under control. However, even in the face of this evidence that the theory is a bunch of hogwash, proponents claim the only reason it didn't work is because it wasn't "pure" enough - that is, there remained some restrictions on business practices.

this is where the Republican party wants to take us now. they've been putting pieces of it into place since Reagan's Trickle-Down economics, which is actually Free-market capitalism. The whole "small-government" bs they've been pushing is a part of it, along with reducing the deficit by reducing spending on the social safety net. The only things the government should spend money on, according to them, are the military and police. Everything else should be privatized.

Sound familiar?