This is just crazy

[Mickey]

The House has voted to alter the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court so that it can't hear any case having to do with the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

House of Represenatives Goes Effen Crazy

 

Recall that the Supreme Court reversed the Circuit Ct. decision regarding the phrase "under God" in the Pledge. Fearing that the court may revisit the issue and possibly rule differently, the House moved to rewrite the balance of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the government by passing legislation to take this issue away from the court's jurisdiction. Mind you, they are not doing so based on any substantive theory of law, they just want to make sure that no case involving the pledge ever goes to court.

 

This is the same kind of thing done in the Schiavo case in Florida. Legislators don't like a decision by a judge or court and so they just simply pass a new law targeted at that particular case. That ridiculousness turns the legislators into judges and congresses into courts. As to the case or cases effected, they are supplanting the courts rendering them constitutional non-entities. It was bad enough when it involved a handful of state courts in Florida but now they are seeking to turn the Supreme Court of the United States into a powerless pile of nothing.

 

What if the court rules this law unconstitutional, what then? Do they pass a law that says the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over cases having to do with the constitutionality of laws limiting the court's jurisdiction to decide cases involving the pledge of allegiance? Multiply that times every other issue legislators would like to be able to bypass the court on and sooner or later the Supreme Court might as well not exist.

[MichFan]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess. Take away activist judges who pander to the most radical elements of the ACLU and there wouldn't be a pissing match between the Federal legislature and judiciary.

[Mickey]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, I guess.  Take away activist judges who pander to the most radical elements of the ACLU and there wouldn't be a pissing match between the Federal legislature and judiciary.

43703[/snapback]

 

The equivalent would be the Supreme Court decidind that the House of Representatives no longer are allowed to pass legislation on an issue under any circumstances. Please point out to me where that has ever happened.

 

The Supreme Court is charged with being the sole judge of the constituionality of legislation. When they find a given piece of legislation to infact be unconstitutional, they are simply exercising the one power granted to their branch. Is that "legislating"? Semantincs. Whether it is "legislating" or not, it is what they do, what they are required to do. Take that power away from them, and the courts become a useless sham, a pretense of fairness. "Activist Judges" is a political catch phrase used to describe judges whose decisions you don't like.

The phrase first appeared during the Civil Rights movement when "activist judges" grew a spine and put an end to "colored only" drinking fountains. Something that never would have happened if the issue were left to the courage and consciences of legislators.

 

By the way, the Supreme Court reversed the Pledge case, let me say that nice and slow, the decision that so exercised the right was reversed by the Supreme Court. Where are the "activist judges" on this court that are so dangerous we have to come up with preemptive legislation altering the fundamental balance of power between the branches of our government?

 

If the Supreme Court's power can be fiddled with so easily, what exactly would be the check, the balance, to the power of the congress? If they were to pass a law that required all citizens to turn in their firearms what would you do? Sure it would be unconstitutional but congress could first pass a law saying the federal courts have no jurisdiction over 2nd Amendment cases. It would be blatantly unconstitutional but that wouldn't matter. You would have no recourse but to turn in your weapon or face arrest.

 

Do you really think it is a good idea to fiddle and tinker with the very foundations of government just to prevent some future costellation of justices on a future Supreme Court from possibly finding that "under God" in the Pledge is a violation of the Establishment Clause?

[MichFan]

The equivalent would be the Supreme Court decidind that the House of Representatives no longer are allowed to pass legislation on an issue under any circumstances. 

...

By the way, the Supreme Court reversed the Pledge case, let me say that nice and slow, the decision that so exercised the right was reversed by the Supreme Court.

...

Do you really think it is a good idea to fiddle and tinker with the very foundations of government just to prevent some future costellation of justices on a future Supreme Court from possibly finding that "under God" in the Pledge is a violation of the Establishment Clause?

44131[/snapback]

 

- The equivalent might also be the judiciary deciding that the legislature meant something completely different in passing a law than public records indicate they clearly intended.

 

- My understanding is that the Supreme Court did not reverse the case on the merits, rather they decided the father had no right to pursue the case on behalf of his daughter. It is still an open issue.

 

- I don't think it is good for any branch to fiddle and tinker with the foundations of government. But when one branch takes the initiative to do so, I understand the other branches trying to defend themselves.

[Mickey]

- The equivalent might also be the judiciary deciding that the legislature meant something completely different in passing a law than public records indicate they clearly intended.

 

- My understanding is that the Supreme Court did not reverse the case on the merits, rather they decided the father had no right to pursue the case on behalf of his daughter.  It is still an open issue.

 

- I don't think it is good for any branch to fiddle and tinker with the foundations of government.  But when one branch takes the initiative to do so, I understand the other branches trying to defend themselves.

44330[/snapback]

 

Are you accusing the federal courts, in the Pledge case of "taking the initiative" in fiddling with the foundations of government? I certainly understand that you don't care for the decision of the lower court at all. Lots of people disagreed with it including myself. What you are saying here though goes much further and concludes that the federal courts basically don't have the right to decide establishment clause cases. If a litigant comes forward and files a case claiming a violation of the establishment clause, what would you have them do? Either the federal courts do or don't have jurisdiction over constitutional cases. If they had jurisdiction over that case, they did nothing wrong or "activist" in hearing it. The real problem the right has is with their decision. You can't give them jurisdiction when you like the result and pull it away from them when you don't. That would be the very opposite of an independent judiciary. At its core, it is basically a matter of sour grapes.

 

Sometimes I wonder why we fought so hard against the communists and the fascists since we seem to be trying so very hard to be like them. Dumping the judiciary branch of government is a great first step down that road.

[Captain America]

You mean the citizens actually have a say in something through thier elected reps. instead of an appointed judge for life by who knows.The legislative supercedes the court ,,,period :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:

[MichFan]

Sometimes I wonder why we fought so hard against the communists and the fascists since we seem to be trying so very hard to be like them. Dumping the judiciary branch of government is a great first step down that road.

 

Nice overreaction, Mickey.

 

What is going on right now in Florida and in Congress involves one branch tweaking the other to try to bring them back into their Constitutional place. The fact is that the legislature represents the people and a majority of the people want to keep "under God" in the pledge. Our founding fathers used numerous references to God, so it should be fairly clear that they didn't intend to cleanse the word "God" from all things. So yes, the courts that have intervened in this pledge case on behalf of the plantiff have overstepped their authority by misinterpreting the original intent of those who wrote the law for purposes of driving their ideology from the bench. Anytime the courts legislate from the bench they overstep their authority and it has been happening a little too much lately. This in no way is a constitutional crisis -- branches will test the boundaries of their separation powers from time to time.

[erynthered]

Hey Mick, a little up-date on the Schiavo case.

 

Court strikes down Terri's Law:

 

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/09/24/State/Co...s_down_Te.shtml

[Mickey]

Nice overreaction, Mickey.

 

What is going on right now in Florida and in Congress involves one branch tweaking the other to try to bring them back into their Constitutional place.  The fact is that the legislature represents the people and a majority of the people want to keep "under God" in the pledge.  Our founding fathers used numerous references to God, so it should be fairly clear that they didn't intend to cleanse the word "God" from all things.  So yes, the courts that have intervened in this pledge case on behalf of the plantiff have overstepped their authority by misinterpreting the original intent of those who wrote the law for purposes of driving their ideology from the bench.  Anytime the courts legislate from the bench they overstep their authority and it has been happening a little too much lately.  This in no way is a constitutional crisis -- branches will test the boundaries of their separation powers from time to time.

44658[/snapback]

 

Constitutional issues are not voted upon unless there is an Amendment properly brought before the states. If these issues were up to the voters, there would be no need for an independent judiciary at all.

 

You say they exceeded their authority which is a critique of their jurisdictional limits. You then say that they misinterpreted the constitution which is an entirely different criticism which really is a complaint about the result. Had they ruled differently, there would be no complaints. Saying they made the wrong decision under the law is one thing, saying they had no right to even hear the case, period, is quite another. When you say they exceeded their jurisdiction in making the wrong decision you are essentially melding jurisdictional power and individual decisions on individual cases. If they decide right, they have jurisdiction over the case, if they decide wrong, they don't. How in the freaking world would that work? When the case is filed, you don't have a decision and until you do, you don't know if there is jurisdiction so you can't file the case and get a decision to let you know if there is jurisdiction and on and on and on.

 

The core question is whether or not the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to hear cases alleging violations of the establishment clause of the Constitution. That principle was established long, long ago:

 

From Marbury vs. Madison (1803):

 

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.

 

Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

 

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.

 

So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

 

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution.

 

Monkeying around with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, is not "tweaking" the balance of powers.

[e.e.]

principle was established long, long ago:

 

From Marbury vs. Madison (1803):

 

 

Monkeying around with the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, is not "tweaking" the balance of powers.

44842[/snapback]

 

Of course, the delicious irony to your comment here is that SCOTUS didn't have jurisdiction to take Marbury v. Madison in the first place, as I'm sure you know. Besides, isn't that decision itself a terrific example of "monkeying around with the jurisdiction of the SCOTUS" and " "tweaking" the balance of powers"? There certainly isn't any delegated power of judicial review in the Constitution, is there? Not arguing the validity or wisdomof such, just a demonstration that sometimes it is necessary to "tweak" the balance of power.

[MichFan]

Mick, you're getting caught up in a circular argument about what is really a pretty simple situation. The legislature thinks the judiciary is overstepping their bounds so they are giving them a taste of their own medicine. I agree with those legislators who believe that some State supreme and Federal circuit courts have made decisions that constitute legislating from the bench. 'Nuff said.

[Mickey]

Mick, you're getting caught up in a circular argument about what is really a pretty simple situation.  The legislature thinks the judiciary is overstepping their bounds so they are giving them a taste of their own medicine.  I agree with those legislators who believe that some State supreme and Federal circuit courts have made decisions that constitute legislating from the bench.  'Nuff said.

44885[/snapback]

 

Simple question:

 

Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over cases involving claimed violations of the establishment clause of the Constitution of the United States?