Hello:

A while back I heard that the candidate for governor of Florida was advocating drug testing for welfare recipients... I laughed and laughed and laughed... THAT stuff doesn't happen in THIS country... We have a Constitution, for crying out loud.. That guy will NEVER get elected... And, IF he is, they'll NEVER let him do that.

Guess what?

Now we have Newt Gingrich saying that he wants to put the judiciary UNDER the control of congress or maybe the president himself...

I'm not laughing now... These guys MUST be stopped!!

excon

Drug testing for Politicians?
Some appear wacked out on something?

That isn't what he's saying . He is saying the same thing I've said about the Judiciary . They are but one equal branch of the government. But since Marbury v Madison they have acted as a superior branch and 'final arbiter ' . That is not what the founders intended ,and there are Constitutional remedies if the Executive decided to exercise them.

The problem is that most roll over and play dead whenever SCOTUS decrees .
Andrew Jackson said it right (although he never acted on it ) when he said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!".
Lincoln correctly ignored the Dred Scott Decision because SCOTUS was just plain wrong .

I am not supporting Newt for the nomination . But I applaud him for bringing this important issue into the debate .

By the way... most right wingers do not support Newt. His criticism of Romney's work in the private sector borders on Obama leftist populist clap trap .

Hello again, tom:

I suppose, then, if the Supreme Court rules AGAINST Obamacare, the president could just IGNORE it.

excon

I suppose . But he would probably need Congress to back him up. It is obviously not as simple as that . But... look back in history. Roosevelt's initial reforms were over ruled by SCOTUS ,and he came very close to adding Associate Justices to the court to change the equation.

The fact is that judges can be removed and whole districts can be added and removed . The only thing set in stone in the Constitution is that there will be a Supreme Court that is an equal branch. The rest is for Congress to decide . (Article 3 sec 1)

by the way ;a better example than Obamacare (which will probably pass the judicial test) is the Kelo decision.
This decision was universally panned by both the left and right . Congress voted 365 to 33 in support of a resolution expressing 'grave disapproval' at the court decision.”

There has to be a remedy from a wrong court decision beyond a new Amendment . We can both cite cases where SCOTUS has blown it . Bottom line is the judicial branch has a disproportionate share of the power in America, and too many judges have proven that they are not up to exercising that power with restraint or responsibility.

Hello again, tom:

We have had this discussion many times over the years. As uncomfortable as I am with the status quo, if congress could decide the Constitutionality of the laws they pass, the Bill of Rights is toast. Same thing with the pres...

It may be toast anyway. I suppose we should be glad it lasted 200 years.. I can feel my freedoms slipping away.

excon

And you think a panel of 9 judges should be the sole arbiters ? (actually it usually comes down to one judges decision)
If you think that then your freedom slipped away long before now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

And you think a panel of 9 judges should be the sole arbiters ?

---

Hello again, tom:

No.. But, who's better? Congress?? Which one of the Bill of Rights do YOU think would pass congress?

excon

Good... let' s agree then that no one in a nation that relishes liberty should have either an elected ,or an appointed lifetime position of power. The founding fathers never intended to have judges be kings.

Critiquing the courts in his memoirs ,Jefferson wrote .
The Constitution ... is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
That should not be ;but that is how judicial power evolved in a short time in our Consitution's history ;and it has become ever imperial since.
Would you agree to the basic premise of billls Congress considered like 'The Constitution Restoration Act', which would order federal courts to not rely on foreign laws, administrative rules or court decisions ?
That if the court decides a law is unconstitutional it has NO authority to impose a remedy ?


Let's face it.. if there is a proposition that all the branches are equal ,then both the judiciary and Congress have the ability to block the Executive ;BUT.. there is no blocking action inherent to stop an out of control judge in the current evolution beyond impeachment from the 2 houses of Congress ;and /or the time consuming amendment process. Both are not immediate responses to judicial over-reach like even lesser courts have on the President or Congress ,although often the decisions are so wrong that immediate action is required . And the only control the President has on the judiciary is through the appointment process .(at least that is the only one the Presidency except Lincoln has chosen to exercise. )

You ask about Congress. Well why not have SCOTUS decisions subject to a 2/3 over ride ? That would bring balance to the branches.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

You ask about Congress. Well why not have SCOTUS decisions subject to a 2/3 over ride ? That would bring balance to the branches.

---

Hello again, tom:

It's a BETTER solution than the one we've got. But, no cigar.

As a sovereign citizen, my rights are NOT subject to a vote. Your proposal puts them up for a vote. The Amendment process put 'em in, and it's the Amendment process that needs to take 'em out.

I'd think you'd want to guard your gun rights better than that.

excon

OK I see your point on that . But what is more likely to take out your rights is a judiciary with unlimitted and unchecked power of interpretation ;especially one that has the protection of life time appointment. How was a court decision to uphold the interning of Japanese Americans in concentration camps protecting their liberty ? And yet SCOTUS upheld that law 6-3 ,with liberal stalwart Hugo Black writing the majority opinion.

Doesn't sound insane to me. Let's go to the tape:



P.S. For some real right wing insanity, how about those Big Bad Donuts?

Dictatorship is next cab on the rank

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Doesn't sound insane to me. Let's go to the tape

---

Hello Steve:

I'm STILL not sure who Newt thinks should be in charge of the Supreme Court - the president or congress. But, in either case, would you be willing to risk your gun rights to that body?

You would? Dude.

What's insane is the two right wingers fighting it out for the league championship while the more enlightened bunch grovel for 3rd or worse.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I'm STILL not sure who Newt thinks should be in charge of the Supreme Court - the president or congress. But, in either case, would you be willing to risk your gun rights to that body?

---

Depends on which side had control. I believe he said something about the judiciary being equal, not more powerful - which is exactly as it is supposed to be.

Quote:

---

What's insane is the two right wingers fighting it out for the league championship while the more enlightened bunch grovel for 3rd or worse.

---

What will be even worse is if tom wins.

Seems someone has lost sight of what this is all about. The idea is simple; not give anyone too much power, so the congress makes the laws, the judiciary intreprets them, and the administration enforces them. Seems simple enough, when did it get complicated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I suppose . But he would probably need Congress to back him up. It is obviously not as simple as that . But ... look back in history. Roosevelt's initial reforms were over ruled by SCOTUS ,and he came very close to adding Associate Justices to the court to change the equation.

The fact is that judges can be removed and whole districts can be added and removed . The only thing set in stone in the Constitution is that there will be a Supreme Court that is an equal branch. The rest is for Congress to decide . (Article 3 sec 1)

btw ;a better example than Obamacare (which will probably pass the judicial test) is the Kelo decision.
This decision was universally panned by both the left and right . Congress voted 365 to 33 in support of a resolution expressing 'grave disapproval’ at the court decision.”

There has to be a remedy from a wrong court decision beyond a new Amendment . We can both cite cases where SCOTUS has blown it . Bottom line is the judicial branch has a disproportionate share of the power in America, and too many judges have proven that they are not up to exercising that power with restraint or responsibility.

---

I would say that you have this situation because you are a common law country operating under a civil law code. Perhaps there is no answer.

Congress voting on the rightness or wrongness of SCOTUS' decisions is tantamount to interpreting the law according to some type of popular opinion. Voting for judges runs the risk of turning the SCOTUS into a political football.

Tut

Quote:

---

when did it get complicated?

---

Early in our nation's history the Supreme Court did a power grab... in the Marbury v. Madison case, it granted itself the power to declare acts of the other branches of government unconstitutional.
Nothing in the Constitution gave them such power.

So who are you going to have decide what is within the constitution and what is not. You can't leave that to politicians, too much self interest, you need some one impartial or at least removed from the political process

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

So who are you going to have decide what is within the constitution and what is not. You can't leave that to politicians, too much self interest, you need some one impartial or at least removed from the political process

---

Hi Clete,

That's supposably what they have now. Subjecting legal decisions to some type of popular vote is a contradiction of the legal process. Where there is little or no precedent judges will interpret the law.

I don't think there is a satisfactory answer to this problem. But I am a bit of a pessimist when it come to the law.

Tut