The Supreme Court is a crucial element of our society as today’s decisions make clear. So far I haven’t heard the Democratic candidates break out of the tired “Roe vs. Wade” frame on the court, and they need to.
» Breaking News
Paris Hilton Breaks Up With Benji Madden
Auto CEOs Took Private Jets To Beg Congress For Billions
Summit Studios Sees Dollar Signs For “Twilight” Movie
Gay Marriage Ban Going To CA Supreme Court
Tom Daschle Picked To Be Obama’s Health Secretary
I especially loved this part: “In other words, the Supreme Court has now become a bunch of “activist judges,” except it’s “activist” in the right-wing, Bush-Cheney direction.”
Who could ever have predicted that that might happen?
After all, that’s not the Court was intended for.
Well, no, Frank, it isn’t, but that’s exactly the point: whereas Democrats have tended to appoint moderates (right-wingers think that Ginsburg is a liberal because she’s Jewish and a woman and was with the ACLU, but she’s actually a very middle-of-the-road justice who was recommended to Clinton by Orrin Hatch), the recent Republican appointees have been people who are willing to ignore logic and the law in order to reach their politically preferred conclusions. The only “judicial activists” in the last 20 years or so have been conservative Republicans.
Stop it. M.A. There have been a bunch of left leaning decisions, based on that “Living Constitution”, and the worm is turning.
This line: “After all, that’s not the Court was intended for” was sarcastic. The left has been using the Supreme Court as their Legislature and Executive of last resort since the Warren - Douglas Court in the 50’s.
Right, we should pretend that the constitution should be interpreted the same in 2007 as it was in 1907 and 1870.
This line: “After all, that’s not the Court was intended for” was sarcastic. The left has been using the Supreme Court as their Legislature and Executive of last resort since the Warren - Douglas Court in the 50’s.
Not “since.” There was a brief period of liberal judicial activism, the Warren-Douglas period. Most of the rest of the history of the court has been conservative judicial activism, whether in the early part of the 20th century, or decisions like Bush v. Gore.
Conservatives are stuck in the ’60s and still think that “liberal” judicial activism is the big threat, when there hasn’t even been a genuine liberal on the court in years (the most liberal justice now is a Rockefeller Republican, Stevens).
I’m not arguing that, I’m just saying that the left benefited greatly from left - leaning courts. That’s not “the way it was meant to be”. That was the luck of the draw. Well, now it’s gone in another direction.
That’s too bad for the left.
Yes, only the left benefited from our country striking down separate but equal. Just the left. Nobody else. Nope. Not at all.
Let’s cherry pick a decision. One decision. Just one.
“Let’s cherry pick a decision. One decision. Just one.”
Then prove your point. You claim the left benefited, lets seem some decisions.
As a piece of jurisprudence, Roe is a piece of garbage plugging a big hole in a troublesome dike. (That’s dike with an “i”, children.)
You don’t have to be a strict construction fanatic to see that Blackmun pulled abortion rights out of his conscience and not out of the Constitution. He couldn’t sleep at night with the idea of cops busting women for having or attempting to get an abortion. So he invented a constitutional provision that a decent society would have, pretended it flowed from what’s actually in the document, hoping that it would graft like a tree branch.
Constitutions arguably have useful lives and I suspect ours has outlived its usefulness. For all of the praise for how great this document allegedly is, the fact that its terms are subject to such pedantic arguments and such convoluted political fights for nominations to the Supreme Court for its spun interpretation argues for its weakness and poor drafting, not strength.
Constitutions arguably have useful lives and I suspect ours has outlived its usefulness.
That is a remarkably glib statement. While I agree with you about Blackmun, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bath water (no pun intended).
What is wrong with the Constitution is the “ripple effect” of John Marshall’s conception of judicial review.
This argument has raged on this blog many a time, but I still contend that the Supreme Court was never meant to be equal in power to the other branches, and certainly not superior.
Limit their terms to 10 years and let the Legislature return to their duty of rewriting laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster, and Justice appointments will no longer be duels to the death.
“This argument has raged on this blog many a time, but I still contend that the Supreme Court was never meant to be equal in power to the other branches, and certainly not superior.”
It isn’t superior as it can’t change the constitution.
Apparently, CS, it can. Certain rulings (Roe, Brown, Casey, Bowers) have had the same effect as Constitutional amendments. All you need is 5 votes on the Court and joila!: you can “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever you want it to mean. THAT’S why conservatives get so up in arms about “Activist” judges.
“THAT’S why conservatives get so up in arms about “Activist” judges.”
Yeah, and when five judges decide to stop the recount in the closest election in living memory, I don’t remember conservative freaking out over that.
“Activist” judges is just ConTalk for judges that we disagree with.
interesting. i’d think that conservatives would be upset about the supreme court writing police procedures as was done in miranda. or the supreme court forcing states to spend millions of dollars to provide legal counsel to the accused indigent, most of whom will be found guilty anyway. as it turns out, conservatives really just miss being able to discriminate against minorities.
CS, you (conveniently) forgot about the 4 Florida justices who decided that they were allowed to re-write Election Procedures ex post facto. All the Supremes did was uphold existing FL law.
“CS, you (conveniently) forgot about the 4 Florida justices who decided that they were allowed to re-write Election Procedures ex post facto. All the Supremes did was uphold existing FL law.”
If that’s all that happened, why did they specifically say that there decision did not create new precedent and couldn’t be used in the future as such.
It seems upholding a state law wouldn’t need that type of language.
In fact, your premise that the Florida judges change the law was wrong. In fact, the Surpreme Court demanded that they change the law with cleared language and do the recount, but the imposed a deadline that was impossible to accomplish. (Basically, they waited till a few hour before the deadline before given their ruling.)
So again I say, the five conservative judges on the Surpreme court created new law, and then said this law could never be applied anywhere else, but they are still not considered activist judges.
The first case which you mentioned was a “save face” ruling, kicking the can down the road in the hopes that the FL Supremes would see the error of their ways and drop their ruling creating an unlawful recount. Once the FL Supremes decided to go ahead anyway, we got the second SCOTUS ruling which shut everything down.
The reason for the “no new precendet” clause was due to the fact until Gore challenged the FL count, never before had a politician so brazenly disregarded the will of the people. A mark that stood until the recent immigration vote.
“Limit their terms to 10 years …”
Doesn’t this just say it all? Frank wants judges to stop “legislating” and return to strict constructionist interpretations of the Constitution. His proposed solution for how to do this is to, you know, change the Constitution.
idiots. idiots. idiots.
“…and let the Legislature return to their duty of rewriting laws that don’t pass Constitutional muster.”
And the second part of frank’s brilliance … just who exactly is supposed to determine what laws are constitutional or not? Oh right, the judges.
How about this as a solution?
Right wing hack moron idiots should stop playing semantics by suggesting that judicial review is “legislating from the bench” whenever a ruling doesn’t go their way.
Paulie: Stop the name calling, and say something for once.
I never said the Constitution shouldn’t ever be changed. There are after all, 27 amendments. I oppose only a few of them.
I was only suggesting some things that might be done to reduce the Supreme Court’s power,restore some balance to the Legislature, and take some of the bloodshed out of the Justice nomination process.
Paulie, your ad hominem attacks might be impressing someone, but not me.
“I was only suggesting some things that might be done to reduce the Supreme Court’s power…”
Yeah, frank. Sure. Let’s change the Constitution because you don’t like how some judges interpret the Constitution.
Again, what would make the appointment process less of a nightmare would be if right wing hacks stopped nominating hardcore idealogues to do exactly what they claim they are opposed to, that is, legislate from the bench.
The intellectual dishonesty of the right on this issue is obvious.
Let’s change the Constitution because you don’t like how some judges interpret the Constitution.
You can rewrite it so it seems contradictory, but it is not. For the record, that’s the second time, and it’s not working this time, either.
You seem to have forgotten that the topic of this post is Oliver’s fear that current Court has become activist with a rightist slant.
My original point was that the activism suited the left for several decades. My proposal doesn’t favor anyone. It, in my view, restores the intended balance. The change in the term to 10 years would make the Supreme Court seat a less valuable commodity.
So, if you any objection to the real issues I have raised, let me know.
While I don’t agree with Frank 100%, I do think the SCOTUS is too easily perverted to partisan ends. If nothing else, the indefensible intrusion into the 2000 election with Gore vs. Bush (as has been pointed out, the attempt to prevent their decision from being used as precedent tells you everything you need to know). I also appreciate the attempt to protect the court from interference from the other branches, hence the lifetime appointments. However, it’s clear the system is broken and something needs to be done. Perhaps a rotating panel of state judges could be called upon to review SCOTUS rulings every few years to ensure the court remains on solid legal footing and isn’t handing down decisions on dubious ideological grounds. Hopefully by rotating the judges among the states, a reasonable right/left balance can be struck and the mere idea that there is a review process in place might work to keep the SCOTUS honest. Whatever the solution, something needs to be done (and judging by the problems over at Justice, something needs to happen over there, too).
“So, if you any objection to the real issues I have raised, let me know.”
Frank, the court is acting exactly as it was designed to act by the Founders. That’s why elections matter. The fundamental difference here is how the right and left choose to define the issue.
The left accepts it for what it is an argues for the importance of keeping right wing hacks off the court in favor of moderates and left of center judges.
The right, on the other hand, attacks the very institution of the court and the Constitution to stoke the rage its ever more rabid base. The right wants to impact laws and legislation as much as the left but it acts in a fundamentally dishonest way in how it chooses to define the debate. The right’s behavior here is actually anti-democratic as it seeks to deliberately undermine confidence in judges, the courts and the judicial system as a whole.
Your suggestion is born from this approach. Rather than discuss ideas and candidates, you have choosen to attack the institution of the supreme court itself under the assumption that it is somehow broken. The Supreme Court is not broken it’s functioning as it should. The right hates that and so, rather than just try to win elections, it has sought to undermine confidence in the court as well.
That’s why you’re an idiot and a hack, frank. You have come with a solution to a problem created whole cloth by the propaganda machine you are an obvious slave to.
“However, it’s clear the system is broken and something needs to be done.”
Obviously, I disagree.
“… judging by the problems over at Justice, something needs to happen over there, too …”
Now here is an example of the system being broken deliberately by conservatives who sought to us a branch of the government for political ends. Again, we can see the intellectual dishonesty and rampant anti-democratic bent of the right wing in action.
You had me fooled, Paul. I was answering your comment one part at a time. Then I got to the end.
You’re not worth it. Go kick a kitten.
“The first case which you mentioned was a “save face” ruling, kicking the can down the road in the hopes that the FL Supremes would see the error of their ways and drop their ruling creating an unlawful recount.”
It wasn’t an unlawful recount. In fact, what the Surpreme Court demanded they do would have been unlawful.
“The reason for the “no new precendet” clause was due to the fact until Gore challenged the FL count, never before had a politician so brazenly disregarded the will of the people.”
And another lie. One that I would love so see your bullshit defence of.
“Go kick a kitten.”
Calling you a hack idiot moron is not the same thing as kicking a kitten, frank. It is the same thing as calling a kitten a kitten.
When you recognize this you will have taken your first step toward not being a hack idiot moron.
“Calling you a hack idiot moron is not the same thing as kicking a kitten, frank.”
Although it is a very funny response, in a pathetic, desparate kind of way.
Calling you a hack idiot moron is not the same thing as kicking a kitten, frank.
Well done, Paulie. What will you next epiphany be? Water is wet? The sky is blue?
What I meant, O charming one, was that instead of calling me names, you could try something that you would find equally entertaining, like kicking a cat. Nice try at simple awareness.
And one gold star to the Idiot Bastard Son, Strowbdidge, who thought my response was very funny.
“… you could try something that you would find equally entertaining, like kicking a cat.”
um, i don’t find it entertaining to call you a hack idiot moron. It is no more entertaining than, as you say, calling water wet or the sky blue. You are, without question, an idiot hack moron.
You have no understanding of the Constitution or the role of the Supreme Court outside what a small band of radical, hack idiots has told you: That judicial review = legislating from the bench.
The fact of the matter is that the Founders did indeed intend the Court to be an equal branch of government and that judicial review is the means through which that is established. We have had this discussion before Frank and I would like to remind you that, once again, simply ignoring the facts of history as you clearly have, does not a valid argument make.
One need only look at your “solution” to the “problem” to see how little you understand of the Court’s intended role. Replacing judges every ten years would make the Court far more susceptible to the whims of politicians and the passing fads of public discourse thus weakening an important check against the tyranny of the majority. But then again, as you so clearly admit your stated aim is precisely to weaken the court.
But Frank, you go on to claim that your “solution” would allow the legislatures to return to the task of re-writing laws found to be unconstitutional. How would this be the ultimate result of your “solution” when you have already weakened the very Court that would make such determinations of constitutionality in the first place?
Again, you haven’t put a single ounce of thought into the issue or your “solution.” You just came here and spit it up like the good little right wing drone that you are.
“And one gold star to the Idiot Bastard Son, Strowbdidge, who thought my response was very funny.”
It is funny, but not in the way you think it was. Or at least not in the way you think I think it is.
Monty Python, two pepper-pop women are arguing and one is winning. In the middle of the discussion, the other shouts, “Burma!”
“Why did you shout Burma just now?”
“I panicked.”
The fact that you thought, ‘Kick a kitten.” was a good retort was funny.
In other words, I was laughing at you, not with you.
It wasn’t an unlawful recount.
It certainly was. The law is Florida was that there would be one recount. That’s the one certified by Harris. Gore sued to have the recount deadline extended in 4 counties in order to have a few more chads “accidently” punched. When the FL Supremes decided to grant that request directly in contrast to the law on the books, Bush appealed to SCOTUS.
And another lie.
A joke actually. And a poor one at that.
Paulie: You can’t generate a comment without an ad hominem attack.
Again, you haven’t put a single ounce of thought into the issue or your “solution.”
And, “idiot hack moron” represents thought?
I don’t see the point of it, and I don’t really want to know.
But there can be no discussion under those circumstance.
The fact that you thought, ‘Kick a kitten.” was a good retort was funny.
The fact that you thought “Kick a kitten” was a ‘retort’ indicates that you have no idea what I meant.
Nothing new for you.
“And, ‘idiot hack moron’ represents thought?”
Yeah, Frank. Cuz that’s all I said. Shall I add, whiny ass baby, to the list as well?
Paulie: Why you can’t have a civilized conversation is not my problem to solve.
Why you continue to call me “idiot hack moron” is not my problem to solve.
I guess your point is that if I were a real tough guy, I’d tolerate your abusive language, is that it?
Well, perhaps you could use all your mighty powers of persuasion to convince me that that is true.
I tried communicating with you, and you were reduced to name calling. That’s your problem.
“Why you continue to call me “idiot hack moron” is not my problem to solve.”
Maybe you could try not being an idiot hack moron. You know, just slow down think things through first, Frank.
Like how exactly would making the Supreme Court more susceptible to the whims of politicians and reducing its weight in relation to the other branches, ensure the effectiveness and authority of its proper role of reviewing the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and other legislatures?
Because the Supreme Court is now being used far more often as legislature of last resort than an arbiter of Constitutionality.
Long before the commerce clause, it was never the function of the Supreme Court to accomplish for interest groups what couldn’t be done in Congress.
That’s too bad. That’s not what they were intended for. Ruling on Constitutionality is not the same as overruling the Congress and or the Executive.
Serving a 10 year term is scarcely “making the Supreme Court more susceptible to the whims of politicians”. It would simply stop it from being a winner take all position. Now, we stand ghoulishly over elderly justices, wondering if they’ll die before Bush leaves office.
Appointing judges is now a Presidential Election issue.
Why?
Why should the legislature go back to their jobs of rewriting laws that don’t pass judicial muster? Because if “it’s all over but the shouting” at the Supreme Court, then they have become the most powerful branch, and that they were never meant to be.
Me: “It wasn’t an unlawful recount.”
SaveFarris: “It certainly was. The law is Florida was that there would be one recount.”
Care to back that up. I need the Florida Law and the Supreme Court ruling that says the Florida Court broke that rule.
Me: “The fact that you thought, ‘Kick a kitten.” was a good retort was funny.”
The Illiterate Moron: “The fact that you thought “Kick a kitten” was a ‘retort’ indicates that you have no idea what I meant.”
So it wasn’t a quick reply to a question or remark. Then what was it?
“Because the Supreme Court is now being used far more often as legislature of last resort than an arbiter of Constitutionality.”
If a law in unconstitutional, they say so. It’s as simple as that.
They can’t legislate from the bench, cause they can’t create new laws.
However, they can say when current ones are unconstitutional, which is their job.
It’s only an issue with right-wingers cause what they want to do is unconstitutional.
Strowbridge made simple: I’m right because I’m right; you’re wrong because you’re wrong.
Well, I’m convinced!
“Why should the legislature go back to their jobs of rewriting laws that don’t pass judicial muster? Because if “it’s all over but the shouting” at the Supreme Court, then they have become the most powerful branch, and that they were never meant to be.”
Just stop and think frank.
You are confusing things: Judicial review and writing laws. That’s of course what the right has endeavored decades to get you to think, that these two things are actually one in the same.
Just look the above paragraph. You suggest that rewriting unconstitutional laws should be the job of the legislatures. Well, frank, it is. The courts only determine which laws are unconstitutional, they don’t then propose new laws to take their place.
At the outset of the paragraph you accept judicial review on principle — who afterall is telling the legislature to rewrite their laws — but by the end of it by the end of it judicial review has become an egregious power grab by a rogue institution.
if you want to have a debate, frank, try to bring your brain next time, not that bag of mush you’ve been carrying around since your catholic school days …
Just total idiocy on parade.
“Strowbridge made simple: I’m right because I’m right; you’re wrong because you’re wrong.”
Um, Frank, it is that simple. You are dead fucking wrong. The courts do write laws. They only determine which laws are unconstitutional — and even only then when some aggrieved party legally makes that claim first the first place. This is how the justice system was designed to work.
But that’s not how the right wing describes it as working. They describe as “special interests using the courts to legislate from the bench.”
Then you, without thinking for a single second, parrot that statement ad naseum.
“The courts do write laws.”
Scratch that. Obviously, the courts DO NOT write laws.
I know the courts do not write laws. I didn’t say they did. They have become the Legislature of Last Resort by declaring laws unconstitutional.
You know exactly how it works, or you are incredibly naïve.
You suggest that rewriting unconstitutional laws should be the job of the legislatures. Well, Frank, it is.
Again, it was not my point that it was not their job.
Here is what I said, and when:
“Strowbridge made simple: I’m right because I’m right; you’re wrong because you’re wrong.
Well, I’m convinced!”
Two points:
1.) That’s not my argument.
2.) It’s better that your argument, which is the Supreme Court should stop doing the job they were created to do because you don’t like some of their decisions.
“They have become the Legislature of Last Resort by declaring laws unconstitutional.”
That’s their job. If a law is unconstitutional, it shouldn’t be in effect. If the Legislative branch were doing its job, those laws wouldn’t be in effect at all. And you are seriously arguing that because the Legislative branch isn’t doing their job, the Supreme Court should be neutered to prevent them from doing their job.
The reason the Legislative branch isn’t doing their job is because they are dependent on the electorate for their paychecks. The Supreme Court’s only concerned about the constitution. If the majority of the people want to do something unconstitutional, then the legislative branch will try and get it done. However, the majority can’t do whatever they want, there are limited the constitution puts in place. And that’s a damn good thing, otherwise you get mob rule.
“That’s their job. If a law is unconstitutional, it shouldn’t be in effect. If the Legislative branch were doing its job, those laws wouldn’t be in effect at all.”
That’s it in a nutshell. Now the same idiotic legislators who pass unconstitutional laws are the ones who want to stack the courts with hard right ideologues so that those laws can stay on the books. Wonderful.
The two of you together — it had to happen…
Now I have no idea what either of you are talking about.
I think I’ll take a nap.
The reason the Legislative branch isn’t doing their job is because they are dependent on the electorate for their paychecks. The Supreme Court’s only concerned about the constitution.
Then make the Legislators legislators for life?
How about making the President, President for Life?
Only let’s not wait until 2008, I want it done now.
Now, are we done with the silly?
Fine.
The Legislature writes the laws. Sometimes they screw it up. The Supreme Court says they screwed it up. The Legislature should, and is empowered to, write it over.
BUT THEY DON’T.
The Supreme Court has become the place where laws go to die.
Let’s say you’re a special interest group. Want something done for you? Simple. Have a law that works against you declared unconstitutional. It will never be seen or heard from again.
38 states had laws prohibiting abortion — more than enough states to AMEND the Constitution. Then, in one day — poof! — all gone!
Can anyone rewrite that law? Nope.
That’s what I call “legislating from the bench”.
Just like Brown v. Board 11 years before the Civil rights Act.
Try not to hurt each other.
“Now, are we done with the silly?”
Wow, you are fucking stupid. Nothing I said even remotely suggested I wanted the legislation or president to be elected for life.
Jesus Christ, Frank, can you not post more than three lines without lying?
“The Legislature writes the laws. Sometimes they screw it up. The Supreme Court says they screwed it up. The Legislature should, and is empowered to, write it over.
BUT THEY DON’T.”
THEY. CAN. YOU. FUCKING. WHORE.
If the Supreme Court says the law is unconstitutional, the Legislative branch can try again.
“Can anyone rewrite that law?”
They also can’t write a law that says you have to be Christian to be a Senator. Cause it’s against the constitution.
Just cause you think abortion is evil murder, (and not merely a property crime), doesn’t mean the Supreme Court was wrong in Roe v. Wade.
If the law can’t be rewritten to fit under the constitution, then it shouldn’t have been in place from the start.
I will explain it to you, you anencephalic delinquent…
The reason the Legislative branch isn’t doing their job is because they are dependent on the electorate for their paychecks. The Supreme Court’s only concerned about the constitution.
That’s your statement, Clem
The Supreme Court doesn’t have to worry about being elected, so they are doing a bang-up job, right?
So, it only follows that we should have a legislature for life, and a President for Life, right?
[Feeling misinterpreted? Welcome to my world.]
When I said that the Legislature can rewrite the laws, but they don’t, the Idiot Bastard Son answered, BUT THEY CAN, as if you were somehow disagreeing with me.
When you weren’t, you reindeer - fellating butt sniffer.
I never said Roe v. Wade was incorrect in this thread. I was merely pointing out that the procedure in Roe v. Wade was “legislating from the bench”
BTW, I don’t know if abortion is evil murder; although I would be hard pressed to conceive (no pun intended) of a murder that wasn’t evil.
Abortion is the taking of a life, and can only be properly construed that way in law. Anything else is folly.
Finally: The Funniest: If the law can’t be rewritten to fit under the constitution, then it shouldn’t have been in place from the start.
Well, Skippy, in order for a law to be discovered as “not fitting the Constitution”, it would have to be rewritten first, would it not?
“The Supreme Court’s only concerned about the constitution. Then make the Legislators legislators for life? How about making the President, President for Life?”
Are you that dumb? You’d have to be to write this.
Frank, the Constitution is structured the way that it is for a reason. The members of each branch, the executive, legislative and judicial, are subject to different cycles of longevity as a part of the larger principle of checks and balances that governs the whole document.
The Senate is for six, the house for two because the Founders wanted to make one more and one less responsive to the will of the people as a means of balancing the passing whims of the people with a more deliberative detached institution.
The president serves four years, in between the six and two.
Supreme Court judges serve for life because they are intended to check both institutions regardless of political loyalties to any person or party in office.
For you to suggest that its ridiculous for judges to serve for life while the congress or president do not simply underscores your complete lack of understanding of the constitution and the basic principles that govern it. Really it’s astonishing how fucking dumb you are.
“So, it only follows that we should have a legislature for life, and a President for Life, right?”
Idiot. It only follows if you have no clue about the Constitution.
I was merely pointing out that the procedure in Roe v. Wade was “legislating from the bench”
Merely. Sure, Frank. What you are merely doing is labeling something it is not. The Supreme Court weighed in on the constitutionality of the then current abortion law. That’s it. That what happened. And that’s exactly what the Court is supposed to do.
To suggest that this is not what the court is supposed to do and so it needs to be totally overhauled is idiot hackery of the highest order.
I was merely pointing out that the procedure in Roe v. Wade was “legislating from the bench”
You know, frank, you may as well have gone whole hog here given your position on abortion and just said:
‘I was merely pointing out that the procedure in Roe v. Wade was “killing babies with their own hands from the bench.”
Like i said, merely, my ass.
Well, Skippy, in order for a law to be discovered as “not fitting the Constitution”, it would have to be rewritten first, would it not?
yeah frank, because legislators are barred from consulting constitutional lawyers or their own brains to figure this out before the write a law. Indeed, legislators should not have to know anything about the constitution or its functioning before sitting down to write laws. This is apparently the criteria for right wing candidates at least.
idiot.
Paulie, I’m tired of you, and I’m tired of Strowbridge, and I’m tired of my words being twisted, and I’m tired of getting lame civics lessons from a guy who writes movie reviews for a living.
One minute I’m addressing you, and CSS is responding, then I’m addressing him, and you’re responding.
I’d love to challenge either of you to a straight up debate on this topic.
I’d mop the floor with either one of you. And if I could debate each of you one at a time, I’d beat you both.
Oh mercy, frank. Mercy.
You know how this is like a blog? You are free to respond whenever and however you’d like frank. If you want to actually explain what the hell it is you mean in language people can understand, by all means, go for it. You seem incapable of it though.
Please explain how determining a law to be unconstitutional is the proper and accepted role of the courts but somehow roe v wade is legislating from the bench. The court determined that the abortion law in question was unconstitutional. You may not agree with their reasoning but that’s what they did and it’s all that they did. period.
“So, it only follows that we should have a legislature for life, and a President for Life, right?”
You are so fucking stupid. Calling you retarded is an insult to retarded people.
You don’t need legislators or presidents for life, because you have a judiciary that is there to correct them when they overstep they limitations.
Of course, assholes like you want to strip them of it.
“[Feeling misinterpreted? Welcome to my world.]”
You are not misinterpreting my words. You are lying about what I said.
And again I suggest doing a little research on projection.
“I never said Roe v. Wade was incorrect in this thread. I was merely pointing out that the procedure in Roe v. Wade was ‘legislating from the bench’”
And you are wrong. No legislation was written in Roe v. Wade. An unlawful law was removed, which is not the same thing. Had the constitution been observed from the start, it wouldn’t have been there to begin with.
“Abortion is the taking of a life,”
And you’re wrong here as well. You’re forgetting a key defining characteristic of life, which doesn’t come into play in most abortions, so you can’t make that blanket statement.
“Well, Skippy, in order for a law to be discovered as “not fitting the Constitution”, it would have to be rewritten first, would it not?”
No, Frank. It wouldn’t.
A law can be unconstitutional as originally written. Unless you meant something else like declaring a law invalid is rewriting it. But that would be powerfully retarded.
“Paulie, I’m tired of you, and I’m tired of Strowbridge, and I’m tired of my words being twisted, and I’m tired of getting lame civics lessons from a guy who writes movie reviews for a living.”
I’m tired of you being on the same planet as me. Considering the picture I saw of you, that won’t be a problem much longer.
(Unless you are in you 80s, you need to see a doctor.)
“I’d mop the floor with either one of you. And if I could debate each of you one at a time, I’d beat you both.”
How would it make a difference? It’s not like you have to post responses to us simultaneously. You can do them one at a time.
You act like one of us is stealing your keyboard so you can’t respond.
How could debating one of us at a time be easier? Hell, I could send my responses to Frameone and he could post them and you’d never know.
…
Well, you’d figure it out when he called you retarded.
…
Although, since you are retarded, perhaps you wouldn’t figure it out.
How can I respond to two different people when they are
a) Twisting my words, so that person A can pretend I said Z, and person B can respond to A’s interpretation Z.
b) One person says one thing, which is wrong, and then the other person says something which is wrong, and then when I respond, the other person can “cherry pick” from answer.
Strowbridge: Calling me retarded and wishing I would die soon, says more about you than it does about me. I only have to imagine anyone saying that to anyone else to realize how repulsive it would be.
BTW, if you’re not 14, you need therapy — desperately.
Do we agree:
The Legislative makes the laws, and can, if necessary, rewrite laws that the Supreme Court rules unconstitutional.
The Executive branch can veto such laws, and that veto can be overridden
The Supreme Court’s ORIGINAL jurisdiction was over cases involving
Indiv v. Govt
State v. State
State v. Fed Gov
State v. Foreign Country
It ACQUIRED the power to rule on unconstitutionality, per se [i.e, the power of nullification] after Marbury v. Madison
If we don’t agree on that, then we stop right here.
The court determined that the abortion law in question was unconstitutional… and it’s all that they did. period.
Wrong !!
38 states’ abortion laws went down the tubes that day.
The Supreme Court didn’t JUST declare prohibiting abortion in Texas illegal, they declared abortion legal up until every point of pregnancy including actual delivery in EVERY STATE OF THE UNION!
Did they or did they not?
Yes or No.
Um, Frank, it’s the use of the term “acquired” as if Marshall simply seized a power to the court that was not present in the Constitution itself.
But stop and think about it for two seconds. Please.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If a state or federal law conflicts with the Constitution, which law is the Court supposed to apply? The Constitution should take precedence over all other laws where there is a conflict otherwise the constitution is meaningless. Is that not correct?
The power to review for Constitutionality, while implied and sensible, was indeed acquired by Marbury v. Madison.
The Constitution should take precedence over all other laws, but that doesn’t make the Referee the “winner of the game”.
The Supreme was given a specific jurisdiction, and they have exceeded it, on the left, and on the right.
Also, where is it written in the Constitution that any decision made by the Supreme Court with regard to one law, instantaneously applies to all 50 states?
“The Constitution should take precedence over all other laws, but that doesn’t make the Referee the ‘winner of the game’.”
But that, of course, isn’t the end of the story is it? There are a number of remedies that legislatures have to respond to Supreme Court decisions, the first one being: Re-write the law in accordance with the Constitution.
The second would be an amendment to the Constitution.
Again, both of these remedies are checks against the Court.
That’s the system Frank. If you think it’s too onerous fine but it’s onerous for a reason so that the Constitution is not subject to every whim and pet issue that gets kicked up by politicians and hacks as they rile people up for their own political gain.
And as for your latter comment I believe its called Article III.
the first one being: Re-write the law in accordance with the Constitution.
And my suggestion that the Legislature return to doing that more often was met with scorn.
Article III, Section 2, says “The judicial power shall extend to all cases,” not that the ruling shall extend to all the states.
Now, Article IV is a little closer:
Section 1. Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.
Not the Supreme Court.
Okay, Frank, I’m going to assume that you are conceding the first point which is that the Supreme Court’s decision in this or any other case is not the last word on anything period no matter how onerous you think the remedies are. Is that the case?
What I am saying is that, Constitutionally, it is not, but as a practical matter, it is.
Think about it: How often are laws re-written after they have been declared unconstitutional?
Frank, because no one affords themselves of a remedy does not mean that the remedy, practically or not, does not exist. Secondly, would you care to explain the plethora of restrictions on abortion right up the “partial birth” abn that happened after Roe in terms of your above statement: “Think about it: How often are laws re-written after they have been declared unconstitutional?”
Could you please just stop and think before you post?
“Could you please just stop and think before you post?”
If he did, he wouldn’t post.
“Calling me retarded and wishing I would die soon,”
Further proof that you, like nearly all NeoCons, are either stupid or liars. I think it’s both.
I never wished you would die, I merely predicted it would happen soon.
“It ACQUIRED the power to rule on unconstitutionality, per se [i.e, the power of nullification] after Marbury v. Madison”
No it didn’t. The power was defined then, but it was in the constitution before. Without judicial review, the courts have nearly no power and are certainly not part of the checks and balances.
“38 states’ abortion laws went down the tubes that day.”
And 12 remained in place.
It rules that a certain law was unconstitutional because of a particular factor and all other laws that have that factor are therefore also unconstitutional.
Or are you saying the Supreme Court should have to declare each law unconstitutional individually? Wouldn’t that be a huge waste of time?
“Think about it: How often are laws re-written after they have been declared unconstitutional?”
You realize the abortion laws in several states have been re-written a number of times, including very recently. Some of them were killed before they were voted into place because the legislators new they would fail the constitutional test. Others have made it to the Supreme Court to be overturned or upheld.
In short, you are wrong.
Strowbridge: You are ignorant and a liar.
This is what you said: I’m tired of you being on the same planet as me. Considering the picture I saw of you, that won’t be a problem much longer.
This response that follows is for frameone, and frameone alone.
You have used my example of “legislating from bench” and are trying to deny it to disprove one part of my argument, while using it as a proof for your side.
You obstinately refuse to accept what I am saying. Perhaps you should think a minute about what I am saying before you comment.
We have established that the Legislature (aside to Clem — that means Congress) can, but only rarely does, rewrite a law that does not pass Constitutional muster.
Because it has been tried and succeeded in some small part, on a state level, does not disprove my point.
Both parties have pretty much given up an reversing Roe v. Wade on a national level. So that’s it. By judicial fiat abortions can be legal up to the day of delivery.
(Aside to Clem: “And 12 remained in place.” Because in those states, it was already legal. But you knew that)
“Strowbridge: You are ignorant and a liar.
This is what you said: I’m tired of you being on the same planet as me.”
Personally, I think it would be funny if you were launched by rocket to the moon. That satisfies you not being on the planet. You annoy me and the proximity is an issue.
“Considering the picture I saw of you, that won’t be a problem much longer.”
So thinking someone is going to die soon is the same as wishing they would. Hmmmm, I don’t think that’s 100% correct. Or even 50% correct.
Don’t get me wrong, when you die, (however long it takes), I won’t shed a tear. But I’m not doing anything to speed that process up, or even contemplating it. Your death, is not on my mind.
“Because it has been tried and succeeded in some small part, on a state level, does not disprove my point.”
Actually, it does.
The court rules that a law is invalid because of X, Y, and Z. If congress can fix X, Y, and Z, the law can come back. This happens a lot. (Usually it is, “The law is too vague. Be more specific.”)
The fact that there are some laws that are broken beyond repair doesn’t mean the court overstepped its bounds. It just means the law was totally fucked up.
“(Aside to Clem: “And 12 remained in place.” Because in those states, it was already legal. But you knew that)”
Of course.