There goes SCOTUS!

[serryjw]

I have no idea how we all missed this, BUT truly the most important post my lifetime. if we do not have SCOTUS we have no ROE, no affirmative action....and certainly no gay rights.........

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/ConstitutionRestorationAct.htm

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/HR3799ConstitutionRestorationAct.html

It is so obvious why they are doing this....IF they lose the WH, they lose SCOTUS....They will not allow a liberal President to influence the moral fiber of this country for the next 40 years....They are so good at covering their arses.

[jeter]

1. The bill is unconstitutional

If they want to change this, they need a constitutional ammendment.

Because according to our constitution: the three branches of government (legislative, administrative, and JUDICIAL) are separate but equal.

[Cronus Protagonist]

2. ...and who decides if it's Constitutional?

SCOTUS - that's who. And they've pandered to Bush at every turn and gone our of their way to promote the GOP's deepest wishes.

Still, I agree with you that it would not make it all the way due to the extralegality of it.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Liberal Veteran]

5. Not so. They did allow affirmative action and strike down sodomy laws.

I don't think SCOTUS would like it very much if the legislative branch tries to limit the judicial branches authority.

[Cronus Protagonist]

9. True, good point.

But isn't Scalia a Dominionist? Makes me worry a bit.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[Dookus]

8. We don't know yet

if it's unconstitutional. Article III, Section 2 of the constitution indicates that congress might be able to limit the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. However, as far as I could find, this has never been tried, and it seems quite likely the court would rule against any such attempt, in view of Marbury v Madison.

[plurality]

14. not so

The constitution only says there is to be a judicial branch and a Supreme Court, nothing else. It leaves to Congress the makeup of the courts and all other aspects.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiii.html#section1

Article III

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. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.


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;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.


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. 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.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.


Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.


The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

That's all the Constitution has to say about the courts.

[kodi]

21. "Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases,"

even if one does a "Scalia" and attempts to weasle out under "original intent" there is ample evidence in the federalist papers that the founders considered the courts supreme in matters affecting the nation's laws.


Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Paper No. 78 states clearly the "original intent" of the Courts and its necessary actions.

if the busheviks try a "Scalia" by using the hoary rubric of "original intent" of the Constitution, then so too they should tack to those ideas that laid its philosophical ground work.

From Federalist Paper Number 78.

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."

[DuctapeFatwa]

3. You mean that little gang of rich people who appointed bush?

I hope you didn't think they were on YOUR side.

[mike1963]

4. This is legislation that is already subject to the SC. They are not about

(no matter how scurillous they might be in certain cases) to let this pass constitutional muster even if it manages to get out of congress.
It IS scary, but has a snowball's chance in hell of ever being ruled favorably.

Edit: Look, even if Scalia and Rehnquist were to have, let's suppose, the exclusive say on this, they wouldn't want it because it would limit their own publicly acknowledged desires to rule 'favorably' on such matters. They might be assholes, but they know the bread sometimes falls jelly side down...

[Jazzgirl]

6. It'll never pass.

n/t

[krkaufman]

7. Hilarious..!

This at the same time that Bremer is ruling out basing Iraqi law on Islam.

[Carmerian]

10. I see nothing wrong with the principle of this

Just because a kook like Robertson supports this idea doesn't automatically invalidate it, any more than free speech would be a bad idea if he came out in support it.

There is NOTHING in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court untouchable veto power over other branches of government. If the President wants to stop Congress, he can veto their bills. If Congress doesn't like his veto, they can override with a supermajority. That much is spelled out in the Constitution. The Supreme Court as unassailable king-of-the-hill certainly isn't.

The Marshall court was one of the early milestones in this country's long slide into oligarchy. I think the only reason he got away with it is that people on both sides of the political spectrum saw the Super Court as a convenient cudgel that they could use to beat their enemies into submission...if only they could just reach that weapon.

After Marshall got courts to see themselves as divine authorities, I suppose it was only a matter of time until they started legislating. Think of what damage has been done since the Court turned corporations into fictious people with rights of their own in the late 1800's. The Left had a brief period during the 20th century when the courts went their way, and they let that blind them to the fact that it was still wrong, even though the things the Court ruled on were morally right. Now the pendulum has swung back to where it was for much of this country's history. What are you all going to say when a Democratic Congress tries to break up the media, or indict Bush and Cheney, only to be told that the Court says they can't?

[Dookus]

13. umm...

congress and the states can amend the constitution if they don't like the court's decisions.

The SC does NOT have the power you ascribe to it.

[Carmerian]

15. ?

"congress and the states can amend the constitution if they don't like the court's decisions"

Would you please point out where it says that in the Constitution?

[Dookus]

19. LOL

Article V.

Surely you're heard of amending the constitution.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[Carmerian]

22. I had a feeling you'd make a post like that.

Since you're playing games, I guess I have to spell it out for you : where in the Constitution does it say that if you don't like a court's decision, then 'tough beans!' - you have to go amend the Constitution to fix it? It doesn't.

Of course, your previous post shows you're not thinking too clearly. Let's review :

~Executive wants to check Congress : veto power
-Congress wants to check Executive : power of purse, veto override
-Congress or Executive want to check the power of the Courts : too bad, they have to AMEND THE FRICKING CONSTITUTION!

No, that wouldn't make the courts very powerful, would it?

[Dookus]

23. *shrug*

You call it playing games and not thinking clearly.

I call it reading the constitution.

The Government is set up to give the highest power to the people, via the legislative branch.

The executive can check congress via the veto, but congress can override vetos.

The judicial branch can check congress through the SC - but congress can amend the constutition (with approval from the states).

I'm not sure what your point is. I have shown exactly how the congress and the states can remedy court decisions they don't like. I don't know why you call that playing games.

[ramapo]

11. Scary but a long way from reality

I'd bet there are a lot of pretty wacky bills introduced. This is one of them. Certainly something to watch out for but there's a long haul for this to become law.

This shows that a small minority have gained a great deal of power. They've worked very patiently through the years. There is a lesson to be learned from that.

[yankeeinlouisiana]

12. Louisiana is based on

Napoleonic (sp?) law, not English common law.


"...other than the constitutional law and English common law.”


So, if this passes (which I doubt) y'all can come on down here!

:bounce:

[MattBaggins]

16. These Domionist type psychos are the very reason I am a hardcore

2nd amendment Liberal. May be I take them too seriously, but I'm keeping my self armed just incase they really do start creating that Theocracy they dream so much about.

[Cronus Protagonist]

18. Your guns won't help you from these people

You might get to plug the first five or six that come after you, but after that you'll be the one carried out in a body bag.

"FUCK BUSH" Buttons, Stickers & Magnets

[MattBaggins]

20. I probably will go out in a body bag

but I've had enough military training to take out a few more than 5 or 6 ;)

[knight_of_the_star]

17. That will fail

I do not see the Supreme Court allowing themselves to be marginalized. That and I doubt it will pass anyway, most Congressmen recognize that people will not like tampering with the Court, the last time someone tried that was when Roosevelt tried to expand the size of the SC and that blew up in his face. This won't happen.