Ask Me Help Desk - Big week for SCOTUS

Amend the constitution to what ? It is already written the way it should be and would work fine without the court's usurpations . If SCOTUS would conduct their business in a constitutional way this wouldn't be an issue.

But Congress and the Presidency do have powers over the judiciary they should start exercising including ,but not limited to the amendment process .They could impeach justices that void the law they pass. They can reject appointments to the Supreme Court.They can change the number of justices on the US Supreme Court
They can change the appellate jurisdiction of any court, including the US Supreme Court
They can establish or dismantle any Federal court except the Supremes. The President has the power to refuse to execute a court's decision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

not me . I don't like the status quo . I think Congress should exercise their constitutionally delegated authority to make law ;and the court should stick to their role as defined in Article 3

Good luck making the Congress do its job, and with that constitutional amendment.

The failure of the congress is what the mess is. SCOTUS knows this already, so do most people. Maybe they will believe you because they damn sure don't believe me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Good luck making the Congress do its job, and with that constitutional amendment.

The failure of the congress is what the mess is. SCOTUS knows this already, so do most people. maybe they will believe you because they damn sure don't believe me.

You don't believe that for one second . All I have to say is 'Citizens United ' to get your side frothing at the mouth.

Quote:

But Congress and the Presidency do have powers over the judiciary they should start exercising including

Hello again, tom:

Maybe the president, like me, SHUDDERS at the prospect of South Carolina having the POWER to enslave their people. Not that they would, of course...

Who am I kidding? The south would IMMEDIATELY recreate their glory days...

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

you don't believe that for one second . All I have to say is 'Citizens United ' to get your side frothing at the mouth.

ARG!! You have unleashed the demons of hell upon us >frothing< :(

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Maybe the president, like me, SHUDDERS at the prospect of South Carolina having the POWER to enslave their people. Not that they would, of course...

Who am I kidding?? The south would IMMEDIATELY recreate their glory days...

excon

Would that be the same South Carolina that elected Nikki Haley as Governor ?

She is a winger too so what does that have to do with it? Wingers always have an example of how inclusive they are but beyond the one example what else do the right wing in SC have going for it?

I was debunking Ex's over the top exaggeration about the people of South Carolina . Clearly he has not been there since the early 1960s

No response just trying to stop instant email notifications I'm getting from this OP

Did anyone notice that Antonin Scalia actually quoted a line from "The Simpsons" when he called the Doma ruling "legalistic argle-bargle"? In the classic Simpsons episode "Last Exit To Springfield" news reporter Kent Brockman says "Nuclear Power plant strike, argle-bargle or fooferaw". That is hilarious. Wonder if CNN will pick up on it and run with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

no response just trying to stop instant email notifications I'm getting from this OP

Did you unsubscribe to the thread?

Try that first before attempting to make changes. Then come back and choose no email notifications. Also check your profile for the default setting of no email notifications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by earl237

Did anyone notice that Antonin Scalia actually quoted a line from "The Simpsons" when he called the Doma ruling "legalistic argle-bargle"? In the classic Simpsons episode "Last Exit To Springfield" news reporter Kent Brockman says "Nuclear Power plant strike, argle-bargle or fooferaw". That is hilarious. Wonder if CNN will pick up on it and run with it.

Below is the relevant transcript

Quote:

"Lord, an opinion with such scatter-shot rationales as this one (federalism noises among them) can be distinguished in many ways. And deserves to be. State and lower federal courts should take the Court at its word and distinguish away.

In my opinion, however, the view that this Court will take of state prohibition of same-sex marriage is indicated beyond mistaking by today's opinion. As I have said, the real rationale of today's opinion, whatever disappearing trail of its legalistic argle-bargle one chooses to follow, is that DOMA is motivated by “ 'bare . . . desire to harm'” couples in same-sex marriages."

Or it could've been unrelated to the Simpsons. It was instead a carefully chosen phrase of disgust. It comes from the Scottish phrase "argy-bargy" or 'lively discussion".
Argy-bargy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
We on the AMHD participate in argy-bargy all the time.
'Argle-bargle' is a variation of this that is called a rhyming reduplication similar to okey-dokey ,hocus-pocus,jeepers-creepers ,or mumbo-jumbo.
It wasn't exactly language typically used in legalese discourse . However ,it was intentionally used to express his disgust in the level of discourse .All you have to do is read the majority opinion by Kennedy to see what he was talking about. As Scalia puts it...
"It takes real cheek for today's majority to assure us, as it is going out the door, that a constitutional requirement to give formal recognition to same-sex marriage is not at issue here — when what has preceded that assurance is a lecture on how superior the majority's moral judgment in favor of same-sex marriage is to the Congress's hateful moral judgment against it. I promise you this: The only thing that will 'confine' the Court's holding is its sense of what it can get away with."
Kennedy's majority opinion is chock full of such contempt for Congress. In Kennedy's view ,you can't be opposed to gay "marriage " unless you are a hateful homophobe. That is what Scalia was responding to .

Quote:

Originally Posted by cdad

Did you unsubscribe to the thread?

Try that first before attempting to make changes. Then come back and choose no email notifications. Also check your profile for the default setting of no email notifications.

Thanks .My defaults were fine. It was only this OP.. I corrected the notification status at the bottom of my comment and it seems to have worked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Amend the constitution to what ? It is already written the way it should be and would work fine without the court's usurpations . If SCOTUS would conduct their business in a constitutional way this wouldn't be an issue.

But Congress and the Presidency do have powers over the judiciary they should start exercising including ,but not limited to the amendment process .They could impeach justices that void the law they pass. They can reject appointments to the Supreme Court.They can change the number of justices on the US Supreme Court

But wouldn't this turn SCOTUS into a political football?

Impeach someone for their legal and professional opinion because it doesn't agree with someone's politics at the time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

They can change the appellate jurisdiction of any court, including the US Supreme Court
They can establish or dismantle any Federal court except the Supremes. The President has the power to refuse to execute a court's decision.

Don't federal courts of appeals rule on the constitutionality of a case? If so, won't you be turning this court into a de facto SCOTUS.

Quote:

But wouldn't this turn SCOTUS into a political football?

Impeachment is inherently a political process.I'll change my comments slightly from above.. I would change the constitution to set term limits .

SCOTUS ruled that the original Roosevelt New Deal was unconstitutional . Roosevelt was of course furious ,and actively promoted changing the number of justices on the court. He almost made it happen ,except that Congress would not go along with it. However ,sufficiently chastened and intimidated by the Executive ,SCOTUS did not challenge Roosevelt again.
One of the problems I see is that the other branches of government have not exercised their constitutional powers over SCOTUS . John Marshall's vision of the role of SCOTUS is so ingrained into the system that it is almost like the other branches have forgotten that they don't have to lie down when SCOTUS tells them to.

Quote:

Don't federal courts of appeals rule on the constitutionality of a case?

they do despite the lack of constitutional mandate to do so.

Quote:

If so, won't you be turning this court into a de facto SCOTUS.

SCOTUS as the constitution is written is nothing more than the final appellate court.

All I know is Clarence Thomas must really hate black people.

House Dem: Justice Clarence Thomas is 'worse' than Snowden

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

SCOTUS as the constitution is written is nothing more than the final appellate court.

Tom, this doesn't work in practice.The conformity to a law versus the constitutionality of a law?

If you go with the former then then there is no need for the latter. It's almost a paradox.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Tom, this doesn't work in practice.The conformity to a law versus the constitutionality of a law?

If you go with the former then then there is no need for the latter. It's almost a paradox.

That is the assumption because no one has ever seen it in practice as intended by the founders (except for the 12 years of Washington and Adams terms).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

that is the assumption because no one has ever seen it in practice as intended by the founders (except for the 12 years of Washington and Adams terms).

If you are going to have a constitution then you need someone to rule on constitutionality. You seem to be saying there is no discernible difference between conformity to a law and constitutionality of a law.

The founders were brilliant men of their times, Tom, but the growth of the nation has changed the situations somewhat I would say. I doubt they would have foreseen the civil war and slavery ending after they wrote all men are equal.

But if all branches of government do their job as co equal functions of governing proper balance is again restored. Balance is what I think the founders intended, no matter the situation.

Quote:

If you are going to have a constitution then you need someone to rule on constitutionality.

Hello again,

DUH!!

And, if you don't, I have NO DOUBT that South Carolina would ENSLAVE its citizens. For SOME yet UNEXPLAINED reason, tom believes the VOTERS would NEVER pass unconstitutional laws. And, if they did, then it's up to THEM to reverse it, as though they would... And, I don't think they would.

Nahhh... That idea would make the a mockery of the Constitution.

Excon

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."
Jefferson

Stop making excuses for congressional inaction. And be realistic about the speed of the process and the crap that politics throws in the game as we grapple with the reality of what's fair, and effective.

If you agree that SCOTUS sometimes rules things are constitutional that you know is not ;and sometimes rules things unconstitutional that you know are... then all your claims that themselves imposed power of judicial review are debunked . The fact that they are an unelected for life institution puts an exclamation point on it .
Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

Quote:

Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

I DON'T disagree with you. And, I'll jump over to your side if you can explain to me how the citizens of South Carolina will be protected from an unconstitutional law, IF it's up to the citizens of South Carolina to RECOGNIZE that they passed one.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

If you agree that SCOTUS sometimes rules things are constitutional that you know is not ;and sometimes rules things unconstitutional that you know are .....then all your claims that their self imposed power of judicial review are debunked . The fact that they are an unelected for life institution puts an exclamation point on it .
Face it ,everyone who is making this claim is more comfortable with a governing system other than the one devised by our founders.

I think it's more how that intent is interpreted and the real life effects on people that you have a problem with because any system of governance by any nation has to be tweaked to be effective and reflect the changing reality.

As for the court being unelected that's a good intent for taking politics out of it even though the prez nominates, the congress has to approve. Indeed the very process of going through lower courts before it gets to SCOTUS, is part of a greater process.

I will submit the only ones trying to glean the intent of the founders is stuck in the past. They too had opinions, but the intent was to clearly establish a process for civilized resolution of conflicts that was fair and open.

Checks, and balances.

Tal how can you talk checks and balance when there is none from the arbitrary dictates of SCOTUS ? One of their decisions led directly to a Civil War (Dred Scott ) ;and many others like Roe v Wade has torn apart any hope of compromise in our political process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

I DON'T disagree with you. And, I'll jump over to your side if you can explain to me how the citizens of South Carolina will be protected from an unconstitutional law, IF it's up to the citizens of South Carolina to RECOGNIZE that they passed one.

excon

I know I'll never convince you . I think you should watch this Thom Hartmann video. Makes no difference to me that he makes this argument from the lefty perspective. I can just as easily find conservatives who make the same case .

Thom Hartmann: The story of the 5 Kings who rule America - YouTube

Hello again, tom:

TRY to convince me. I'm not good at lofty ideals, but I DO know how stuff works on the ground... Please tell me HOW the citizens of South Carolina will be protected.. That's all I want to know.. I CAN be convinced...

Why?? Because one of my favorite liberals has LONG supported your position, but he's NEVER answered this question. I listen to Thom as MUCH as I can.

excon

Your take on South Carolina is obsolete. But that is besides the point .If there is one thing U.S. history teaches us about the courts, it is that we can't always rely on them to be a bulwark for Constitutional liberty . The Court, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ignored the protection of life outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment instead choosing to rely on it's own judicial review. Judicial review has elevated the Court's “opinions” to Constitutional law, and that may be the most dangerous legacy of judicial review over the long run.

So I ask you instead ;how can we grant absolute judicial review to SCOTUS (as they have seized for themselves ) and be assured that they will always reach the correct constitutional decision.. since it is you who are in favor of their absolute power over the laws of the land .

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

TRY to convince me. I'm not good at lofty ideals, but I DO know how stuff works on the ground... Please tell me HOW the citizens of South Carolina will be protected.. That's all I wanna know.. I CAN be convinced...

Why??? Because one of my favorite liberals has LONG supported your position, but he's NEVER answered this question. I listen to Thom as MUCH as I can.

excon

Wouldn't it be the same way as it happened in California? The people spoke. Then those that objected took it to the courts. What that did was raise it to the publics attention. From there due process was sought. It is still in question as to what if anything has been violated. California is a state that allows for a referendom process to take place and for the peoples vote to be heard.

Hello again, dad:

Quote:

California is a state that allows for a referendom process to take place and for the peoples vote to be heard.

Got it. Just tell me how the citizens of California would be protected if the people voted, say, to put a fence around the Castro district.

Look.. I can be as silly as I want about what the people might vote for. I just want to KNOW what remedy ANYONE would have in California IF the voters voted for a clearly unconstitutional law.

If you tell me it's another VOTE, I'll tell you that another vote is NOT going to happen, and somebody's constitutional rights are going to be violated. Who knows? The people might vote to OUTLAW all the guns in the state - every last one of them... Wouldn't YOU like a remedy to an unconstitutional law like that?? What might that remedy BE?

Excon

By the same token ,there is no protection for the people of California now when the US Congress or the President make unconstitutional decisions against the State. There is NO system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

Hello again, tom:

I'm waiting... It's a simple question. Are you avoiding it because there IS no answer?? That the Constitution IS what the voters SAY it is??

I wouldn't want to live in that country. You make fun of me, but if that's the way it was here, I TRULY believe that the south would vote to once again enslave their fellow citizens.

excon

Quote:

I wouldn't want to live in that country. You make fun of me, but if that's the way it was here, I TRULY believe that the south would vote to once again enslave their fellow citizens.

Umm for one thing there is this thing called the 'supremacy clause . There is also the 14th amendment that prevents it . Now the court can make all the decisions it wants to but it can't enforce it . It takes executive action to enforce the laws and the constitution. As you know ,since the time of Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion ,the Presidency has not been shy to use force to enforce the national law.

Edit... I of course meant the 13th amendment

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

by the same token ,there is no protection for the people of California now when the US Congress or the President make unconstitutional decisions against the State. There is NO system of checks and balances to protect the states and the people when multiple branches of government, acting in concert, erode and destroy the rights and powers of the states and the people.

It's the UNITED STATES, not the INDIVIDUAL states. ONE nation under GOD, with liberty and justice for all, whatever your opinion of GOD is.

The law is for all, our founding fathers said so. Now pass the joint, you don't have to took on it, but at least get out of the way so the next guy can take a drag, or two.

You don't get to holler about your rights, and ignore mine. I won't let you. Oh I left out "indivisible" from the quoting of the pledge of allegiance because we seem to be divided about it at the moment, but it's there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Its the UNITED STATES, not the INDIVIDUAL states. ONE nation under GOD, with liberty and justice for all, whatever your opinion of GOD is.

The law is for all, our founding fathers said so. Now pass the joint, you don't have to toke on it, but at least get out of the way so the next guy can take a drag, or two.

You don't get to holler about your rights, and ignore mine. I won't let you. Oh I left out "indivisible" from the quoting of the pledge of allegiance because we seem to be divided about it at the moment, but it's there.

So you don't believe in the bill of rights ;specifically the 10th amendment . I'll say it again.. you are not comfortable with the concept of constitutional law as has been ratified in this country . You would prefer a strict democracy over a Republic.

Equality under either is what I am comfortable with, so your opinion is no less, or more, valid as mine.

I have been arguing and debating with conservatives a long time and I am cool with that too. I mean why get upset over pop, and soda water? We can share the danged thing can't we?

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

the court can make all the decisions it wants to but it can't enforce it . It takes executive action to enforce the laws and the constitution.

So, the president decides what's Constitutional? Or the local appellate court? What about the citizens?

Are you talking about the governor?

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:
So, the president decides what's Constitutional? Or the local appellate court? What about the citizens?

excon

Scroll down to the Smack Board why don'tcha.