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.