Welcome to StudentsForum.net!
FAQFAQ      ProfileProfile    Private MessagesPrivate Messages   Log inLog in

Override the Supreme Court?

 
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
   Your Students Forum and Resource Site! (Home) -> Government Grants RSS
Next:  Standing Up for Separation of Church and State  
Author Message
Dana

External


Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 383



(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 5:23 am
Post subject: Override the Supreme Court?
Archived from groups: alt>education, others (more info?)

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040522-102507-1868r.htm
Override the Supreme Court?
By Arnold Beichman

Rep. Ron Lewis, Kentucky Republican, has just introduced a bill to allow
congressional override of Supreme Court decisions. Trying to curb the
Supreme Court's power is about as hopeless as the fate of Sisyphus doomed
for eternity to roll up a steep hill a huge stone that tumbles back down
when he reaches the top. Then the whole process starts once more. Will Mr.
Lewis be a modern Sisyphus?
Mr. Lewis' bill is doomed by the cowardice of his congressional
colleagues who talk big about judicial tyranny but do nothing about it even
though the U.S. Constitution gives Congress pre-eminent power over the
court.


There is no need for Mr. Lewis's bill anymore than there is need for a
constitutional amendment once proposed to override decisions of the Supreme
Court and lower courts.
By a simple majority vote in both Houses, Congress under Article III,
Section 2, can curtail the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. In other
words, Congress could by majority vote tell the court it may not rule, say,
on abortion. This is the language of the Constitution: "The Supreme Court
shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and to fact, with such
exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." What
could be clearer?
The writers of the Constitution did not intend to give the Supreme Court
or the lower courts the power they have assumed almost from the beginning of
the Republic. The Founding Fathers were concerned about a runaway judiciary.
In fact, in the "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton wrote that the
powers of Congress provide "a complete security [against] the danger of
judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority." Hamilton was
anticipating the Supreme Court might become another legislature with this
difference: its members have life tenure.
Louis D. Brandeis, a liberal justice, in 1924 said the Supreme Court had
converted judicial review into the power of "a super-legislature."
Here is a list of other congressional powers over the Supreme Court as
enacted by the Founding Fathers:
(1) Congress decides on the appropriation for the judicial branch,
including salaries. If Congress says no to a requested salary increase,
there is nothing the court can do about it.
(2) The president appoints the justices but they must be confirmed by
the Senate.
(3) Congress has the power to define the jurisdiction of the lower
federal courts because the Constitution grants Congress the right "to ordain
and establish such courts." Nowhere in the Constitution, directly or
implicitly, are federal judges granted the right to manage schools,
hospitals, prisons and other institutions.
(4) The House may impeach and the Senate may try and remove federal
judges right up to the Supreme Court. There is nothing the courts can do
about it because neither the chief executive nor the Supreme Court can
interfere with the impeachment powers of Congress.
(5) Congress is empowered to decide how many Supreme Court justices
there shall be.
The distinguished legal scholar the late Professor Herbert Wechsler has
said, "Congress has the power by enactment of a statute to strike at what it
deems judicial excess." And yet Congress has rarely acted on its undoubted
privilege.
I hope Mr. Lewis will buttonhole his colleagues and ask them why they
have done nothing about judicial excess. Mr. Lewis should ask: "With all
these powers over the courts granted by the Constitution to House and
Senate, why do our 535 representatives sit on their hands?
I have an answer: The U.S. Supreme Court and the lower courts, state and
federal, have gotten away with their power grab because of simple cowardice
on the part of the Congress in exercising its constitutional power over the
Supreme Court.
In this era of judicial supremacy, it is forgotten the Founding Fathers
made Congress - not the president, not the Supreme Court - the ultimate
power. It is no accident that Article I of the Constitution is Congress,
Article II, the presidency and last, Article III, the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court now exercises unrestricted right over its appellate
jurisdiction with the result that legal opinions are, as Justice Antonin
Scalia has said, "rendered not on the basis of what the Constitution
originally meant, but on the basis of what the judges currently thought it
desirable for it to mean."
I wish Mr. Lewis would get his fellow lawmakers to exercise the powers
granted them by the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution over
power-grabbing federal courts.


--
Atheism teaches that there is no God, hence no God-given rights. That
ideology coupled with a system that believed in the superiority of the state
at the expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.

 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
OGLEBUTT

External


Since: May 24, 2004
Posts: 33



(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 5:23 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 04:23:18 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit

That notwithstanding, the legislative branch doesn't have a prayer in
'overriding" the USSC in it's interpretation of the constitution.

Congress isn't charged with interpretation of law, only to legislate
law. That law Must be in accordance with doctrine or law already
established.

THe USSC interprets the legislation if it is found to conflict with
established law as an appellate court. Only certain instances do they
have "original jurisdiction"


========================================================================================================

>From: danaraffaniello RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net (danaraffaniello@worldnet.att.net)Subject: golden/brown showers

>View this article only

>Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30

>swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
>no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
>satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
>showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
>also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.

>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
David Lentz

External


Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 33



(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 3:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

<OGLEBUTT DeleteThis @Stupid.com> wrote in message
news:aok5b011mgfl2llpjap4g53j71jcgvrsk9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2004 04:23:18 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
>
> That notwithstanding, the legislative branch doesn't have a prayer in
> 'overriding" the USSC in it's interpretation of the constitution.
>
> Congress isn't charged with interpretation of law, only to legislate
> law. That law Must be in accordance with doctrine or law already
> established.
>
> THe USSC interprets the legislation if it is found to conflict with
> established law as an appellate court. Only certain instances do they
> have "original jurisdiction"

Congress doesn't have to over ride the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
Constitution, all Congress has to do is exercise her due constitutional
power and impeach the entire court. It is simple and it should be done.

David
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
zepp

External


Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 176



(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 3:48 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 07:47:57 -0600, OGLEBUTT RemoveThis @Stupid.com wrote:

>On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:48:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
><dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><OGLEBUTT RemoveThis @Stupid.com> wrote in message
>>news:aok5b011mgfl2llpjap4g53j71jcgvrsk9@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 25 May 2004 04:23:18 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
>>>
>>> That notwithstanding, the legislative branch doesn't have a prayer in
>>> 'overriding" the USSC in it's interpretation of the constitution.
>>>
>>> Congress isn't charged with interpretation of law, only to legislate
>>> law. That law Must be in accordance with doctrine or law already
>>> established.
>>>
>>> THe USSC interprets the legislation if it is found to conflict with
>>> established law as an appellate court. Only certain instances do they
>>> have "original jurisdiction"
>>
>>Congress doesn't have to over ride the Supreme Court's interpretation of the
>>Constitution, all Congress has to do is exercise her due constitutional
>>power and impeach the entire court. It is simple and it should be done.
>
>Impeaching an entire court is silly dreaming

Not to Dave, who believes the GOP is much more important than America.
>
>Even if you impeached an entire court, there is no guarantee that
>the next banc would interpret constitutional law different.
>
>Decisions made by the USSC are not wrong simply because you
>don't agree with their interpretations.
>
>Your argument is still centered around two main points:
>
>1) Your "reading" of the constitution conflicts with theirs
>
>2) "original intent" isn't being followed.
>
>BOTH are silly beliefs
>
>a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
>b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
>c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist papers
>are not law
>
>
>========================================================================================================
>
>>From: danaraffaniello RemoveThis @worldnet.att.net (danaraffaniello@worldnet.att.net)Subject: golden/brown showers
>
>>View this article only
>
>>Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30
>
>>swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
>>no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
>>satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
>>showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
>>also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.
>
>>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------

-
"The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report
just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no
extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A
senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a
mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing
terrorism.'"

-- CNN, 4/30/2001.


Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Server 13

External


Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 15



(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 3:59 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kAIsc.9696$j24.2020@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> <OGLEBUTT.DeleteThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
> news:t7j6b091v8nuupf4149fu71aiv8gfsd82d@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:48:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
> > <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > ><OGLEBUTT.DeleteThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
> > >news:aok5b011mgfl2llpjap4g53j71jcgvrsk9@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 25 May 2004 04:23:18 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
> > >>
> > >> That notwithstanding, the legislative branch doesn't have a prayer in
> > >> 'overriding" the USSC in it's interpretation of the constitution.
> > >>
> > >> Congress isn't charged with interpretation of law, only to legislate
> > >> law. That law Must be in accordance with doctrine or law already
> > >> established.
> > >>
> > >> THe USSC interprets the legislation if it is found to conflict with
> > >> established law as an appellate court. Only certain instances do
they
> > >> have "original jurisdiction"
> > >
> > >Congress doesn't have to over ride the Supreme Court's interpretation
of
> the
> > >Constitution, all Congress has to do is exercise her due constitutional
> > >power and impeach the entire court. It is simple and it should be
done.
> >
> > Impeaching an entire court is silly dreaming
> >
> > Even if you impeached an entire court, there is no guarantee that
> > the next banc would interpret constitutional law different.
> >
> > Decisions made by the USSC are not wrong simply because you
> > don't agree with their interpretations.
> >
> > Your argument is still centered around two main points:
> >
> > 1) Your "reading" of the constitution conflicts with theirs
> >
> > 2) "original intent" isn't being followed.
> >
> > BOTH are silly beliefs
> >
> > a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
> > b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
> > c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist papers
> > are not law
>
> How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court? Please be specific.
It
> is within Congress' power. It can be done. It should be done.

And then congress will be next, right?
>
> To illustrate the insane depth to which the Court has sunk, the Court has
> decided to hear an appeal of an Alabama death row inmate who contends that
> due to his history of drug addiction, that lethal injection would be
> unconstitutional.
>
> Now no where in the text of the Constitution will you, or even the Court,
> find any specific language dealing with such minute details. The Court
can
> not resolve this case using the Constitution. It does not address such
an
> issue. All the Court can do is so substitute her judgment for that of the
> Constitution. Any justice who substitutes his personal belief for the
text
> of the Constitution should be impeached.

You just said:

The Court can
> not resolve this case using the Constitution. It does not address such
an
> issue.

So what judgement of the constitution, exactly, is being substituted
for..?

This is a prime example of why fundamentalists should be kept out of
government. Their brains have a hole in them when it comes to logic.
>
> David
>
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Server 13

External


Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 15



(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 4:00 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9YJsc.9705$j24.1903@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "zepp" <zeppnospam.DeleteThis@finestplanet.com> wrote in message
> news:b7o6b0llo8jrfllantdagro0l2ona22dk4@4ax.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> > >Impeaching an entire court is silly dreaming
> >
> > Not to Dave, who believes the GOP is much more important than America.
>
> Given the Court's increasing willingness to ignore the Constitution, give
> any reason why the present court should retain office? If you can.
>
> The local fish wrapper just spent a week celebrating Brown vs.. Board of
> Education, a court decision which no constitutional basis. When the
Supreme
> Court decides to start running our lives, it is time for the court to go.
>
> David
>
>

Well, at last you finally trip up and make the freudian slip showing what
you really intend.

> it is time for the court to go.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bob LeChevalier

External


Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4011



(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 5:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"David Lentz" <dlentz10 RemoveThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
>> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
>> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist papers
>> are not law
>
>How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court?

The court has done nothing impeachable.

>Please be specific. It is within Congress' power.

In theory

>It can be done.

Not pragmatically. That would first require a majority in the House
to agree to hold both Scalia and Ginsberg (and 7 others) as guilty of
high crimes and misdemeanors. Then they have to find someone capable
of presiding over the trial, and then they would have to convince 2/3
of the Senate that Scalia and Ginsberg and 7 others are guilty, each
in separate trials, all of which would take months and effectively
stop the legitimate business of the government during that time.

And then, having done that, they would have to name new justices, who
if they followed your agenda, would have to overturn 200+ years of
jurisprudence. The entire practice of law would likely collapse,
since so one would have a clue for years what the law really is, but
of course the lawyers would get VERY rich trying to figure it out.

>It should be done.

No.

>To illustrate the insane depth to which the Court has sunk, the Court has
>decided to hear an appeal of an Alabama death row inmate who contends that
>due to his history of drug addiction, that lethal injection would be
>unconstitutional.

That is a misstatement of the case. The inmate is challenging the use
of a surgical procedure instead of the standard injection. The
government is afraid that a standard injection won't kill him because
his veins are shot.

>Now no where in the text of the Constitution will you, or even the Court,
>find any specific language dealing with such minute details.

Correct.

>The Court can not resolve this case using the Constitution.

If so, then they have to resolve the case using the common law (which
in turn is invoked by the 9th amendment mention of "other rights"; if
the court could not decide to resolve a case based on those other
rights, they would not in fact exist). Failing that, they have to
resolve the case using concepts of justice. But the court has the
responsibility to decide all cases.

>All the Court can do is so substitute her judgment for that of the
>Constitution.

If the Constitution is silent, there is no substitution going on.
Substitution would be if the Constitution were NOT silent, but they
ruled contrary to what it explicitly said.

>Any justice who substitutes his personal belief for the text
>of the Constitution should be impeached.

Perhaps, but you cannot identify any text that has been substituted
for.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab RemoveThis @lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bob LeChevalier

External


Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4011



(Msg. 8) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 6:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>Given the Court's increasing willingness to ignore the Constitution,

That claim is not supported by evidence.

>The local fish wrapper just spent a week celebrating Brown vs.. Board of
>Education, a court decision which no constitutional basis.

On the contrary, read the decision. But if so, then your first
sentence is contradicted, since you would have to show that the Court
has increased since 50 years ago its willingness, and how could they
increase above "ignoring the constitution" above "deciding with no
constitutional basis".

>When the Supreme Court decides to start running our lives, it is time for the court to go.

My life is not run by the Supreme Court, and I doubt that yours is
either. I don't think that they are capable of doing so, even if they
in fact decided to do so, which they haven't.

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
OGLEBUTT

External


Since: May 24, 2004
Posts: 33



(Msg. 9) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 8:02 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 14:17:52 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:


>> >Constitution, all Congress has to do is exercise her due constitutional
>> >power and impeach the entire court. It is simple and it should be done.
>>
>> Impeaching an entire court is silly dreaming
>>
>> Even if you impeached an entire court, there is no guarantee that
>> the next banc would interpret constitutional law different.
>>
>> Decisions made by the USSC are not wrong simply because you
>> don't agree with their interpretations.
>>
>> Your argument is still centered around two main points:
>>
>> 1) Your "reading" of the constitution conflicts with theirs
>>
>> 2) "original intent" isn't being followed.
>>
>> BOTH are silly beliefs
>>
>> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
>> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
>> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist papers
>> are not law
>
>How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court?

Impeachment is an accusation, it is not an end in itself

Impeaching "accuses"

You haven't begun to lay the groundwork for the justification to
accuse, because you merely offer as "evidence" a dislike of their
rulings ccording to YOUR set of beliefs.

That dont cut it.

>
>To illustrate the insane depth to which the Court has sunk, the Court has
>decided to hear an appeal of an Alabama death row inmate who contends that
>due to his history of drug addiction, that lethal injection would be
>unconstitutional.

The death penalty SHOULD be unconstitutional. It is insane to use
murder to stop murder.

And that isn't even taking into account the large percentage of those
executed that may have been innocent.

>Now no where in the text of the Constitution will you, or even the Court,
>find any specific language dealing with such minute details. The Court can
>not resolve this case using the Constitution. It does not address such an
>issue. All the Court can do is so substitute her judgment for that of the
>Constitution. Any justice who substitutes his personal belief for the text
>of the Constitution should be impeached.

It is within the PROPER realm of Judiciary to use "judgments" when
viewing legislation in context of the constitution.

The legal doctrines that arise during the life of the republic, are
necessary so that modern generations do not suffer those
inconsistencies of long-dead doctrines.

The ONLY nuts making a claim such as you level, are those idiots who
believe that only a "Strict construction" of the constituion is
acceptable.

They are nuts. From Robert Bork to David McIntosh (who founded the
Federalist Society) are stuck in 18th century, agrarian, rural
America.

They make a claim that "Writings" contained in the Federalist Papers
"should" be the standard by which the Judicary conducts the court

That hasn't been the doctrine.......EVER, and never will be.

The bottom line is that you do not "oust", "impeach"(then convict)
those covered under the law of impeachment simply because they do not
subscribe to YOUR silly set of views.

Period.

>--------------------------------------------------------

>"Unable to defend his policies in a coherent way and un=
>willing to acknowledge his mistakes, Bush responds to
>criticism with ugliness."

Time Magazine. April 5, 2004
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
OGLEBUTT

External


Since: May 24, 2004
Posts: 33



(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 8:03 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 22:41:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab.RemoveThis@lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:jf47b05dsfpj69bf11jbp9o19lvuep6grr@4ax.com...
>> "David Lentz" <dlentz10.RemoveThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
>> >> b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
>> >> c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist papers
>> >> are not law
>> >
>> >How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court?
>>
>> The court has done nothing impeachable.
>
>In fact, anything is impeachable.

Bullshit

Either you're dense, or you don't understand the first thing about
"impeachment"

Impeachment is an ACCUSATION, not a final end

It is the BEGINNING of a process

The FINAL act is Conviction by 2/3rd of the Senate.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
OGLEBUTT

External


Since: May 24, 2004
Posts: 33



(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 8:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 15:51:33 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10 DeleteThis @rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>
>"zepp" <zeppnospam DeleteThis @finestplanet.com> wrote in message
>news:b7o6b0llo8jrfllantdagro0l2ona22dk4@4ax.com...
>
><snip>
>
>> >Impeaching an entire court is silly dreaming
>>
>> Not to Dave, who believes the GOP is much more important than America.
>
>Given the Court's increasing willingness to ignore the Constitution,

Christ on a crutch

Are you so dense you don't "get it"

There is NO evidence that the "court is ignoring the constitution"

That is a fucking BELIEF on YOUR part (and the other rightwing nuts
you hang around with)

Learn the difference between Fact and opinion; Truth and belief
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
OGLEBUTT

External


Since: May 24, 2004
Posts: 33



(Msg. 12) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 8:13 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 15:51:33 GMT, "David Lentz"
<dlentz10.TakeThisOut@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>The local fish wrapper just spent a week celebrating Brown vs.. Board of
>Education, a court decision which no constitutional basis.

The "basis" resides in the court (correctly) making a judgement
concerning legislation, laws and doctrines that supposes "separate"
means "equal"

It is within the CLEAR mandate of the Court to parse a legislative
concept and review legislation and the resulting harm that occurs
when it conflicts with the spirit of the constitution and law of the
land.

Segregation was inherently "unequal" The preamble and rationale for
the constitution was being abrogated. "Separate" cannot be "equal" by
any standard you name.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
OGLEBUTT

External


Since: May 24, 2004
Posts: 33



(Msg. 13) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 8:19 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

On Tue, 25 May 2004 10:33:49 -0400, buckeye-ELO DeleteThis @nospam.net wrote:

>OGLEBUTT@Stupid.com wrote:
>
>>:|On Tue, 25 May 2004 04:23:18 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Neutral
>>Neutral>Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
>>Neutral
>>:|That notwithstanding, the legislative branch doesn't have a prayer in
>>Neutral'overriding" the USSC in it's interpretation of the constitution.
>>Neutral
>>:|Congress isn't charged with interpretation of law, only to legislate
>>:|law. That law Must be in accordance with doctrine or law already
>>:|established.
>>Neutral
>>:|THe USSC interprets the legislation if it is found to conflict with
>>:|established law as an appellate court. Only certain instances do they
>>:|have "original jurisdiction"
>>Neutral
>
>This is what is behind all of this and actually there are ways they could
>manage to pull it off
>
>This particular bill has the fingerprints of the Christian
>Reconstructionist which have been making a major push for legislative
>enactment of as much of their agenda as they can while the party of the
>Religious Right (Republicans) have the current control of the White House,
>Congress, many federal lower courts and the USSC. They also have control
>of near control of many state courts, legislatures and state Governors

I've said over and over to rightwinger;

"Haven't you wondered why all your leadership speaks with a southern
drawl?

The issues that drive the republican party are rooted in the same
issues fought during the Civil war, the civil rights era, and durning
the Warren Court years.



========================================================================================================

>From: danaraffaniello DeleteThis @worldnet.att.net (danaraffaniello@worldnet.att.net)Subject: golden/brown showers

>View this article only

>Newsgroups: alt.personals.fetish, alt.sex.fetish.watersportsDate: 1997/03/30

>swm/34 houston tx. looking for females to use me as an oral slave.
>no physical penetration,just use my tongue and mouth for your
>satisfaction. will perform toilet service for both golden and brown
>showers. will worship feet and ass. trampling and smothering ok
>also. cyber or in person. ladies tell me your fantasy,on watersports.

>-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Draccus874

External


Since: May 25, 2004
Posts: 88



(Msg. 14) Posted: Tue May 25, 2004 10:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

"David Lentz" <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message news:<kAIsc.9696$j24.2020@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> <OGLEBUTT.DeleteThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
> news:t7j6b091v8nuupf4149fu71aiv8gfsd82d@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 25 May 2004 12:48:13 GMT, "David Lentz"
> > <dlentz10.DeleteThis@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > ><OGLEBUTT.DeleteThis@Stupid.com> wrote in message
> > >news:aok5b011mgfl2llpjap4g53j71jcgvrsk9@4ax.com...
> > >> On Tue, 25 May 2004 04:23:18 GMT, "Roger" <rogerfx.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
> > >>
> > >> That notwithstanding, the legislative branch doesn't have a prayer in
> > >> 'overriding" the USSC in it's interpretation of the constitution.
> > >>
> > >> Congress isn't charged with interpretation of law, only to legislate
> > >> law. That law Must be in accordance with doctrine or law already
> > >> established.
> > >>
> > >> THe USSC interprets the legislation if it is found to conflict with
> > >> established law as an appellate court. Only certain instances do they
> > >> have "original jurisdiction"
> > >
> > >Congress doesn't have to over ride the Supreme Court's interpretation of
> the
> > >Constitution, all Congress has to do is exercise her due constitutional
> > >power and impeach the entire court. It is simple and it should be done.
> >
> > Impeaching an entire court is silly dreaming
> >
> > Even if you impeached an entire court, there is no guarantee that
> > the next banc would interpret constitutional law different.
> >
> > Decisions made by the USSC are not wrong simply because you
> > don't agree with their interpretations.
> >
> > Your argument is still centered around two main points:
> >
> > 1) Your "reading" of the constitution conflicts with theirs
> >
> > 2) "original intent" isn't being followed.
> >
> > BOTH are silly beliefs
> >
> > a) YOU don't get to interpret what the constitution "means"
> > b) There is no accepted doctrine of "oringinal intent"
> > c) the "federalist society" is pure bullshit and the federalist papers
> > are not law
>
> How would it be wrong to impeach the entire court? Please be specific. It
> is within Congress' power. It can be done. It should be done.
>
> To illustrate the insane depth to which the Court has sunk, the Court has
> decided to hear an appeal of an Alabama death row inmate who contends that
> due to his history of drug addiction, that lethal injection would be
> unconstitutional.
>
> Now no where in the text of the Constitution will you, or even the Court,
> find any specific language dealing with such minute details. The Court can
> not resolve this case using the Constitution. It does not address such an
> issue. All the Court can do is so substitute her judgment for that of the
> Constitution. Any justice who substitutes his personal belief for the text
> of the Constitution should be impeached.
>
> David

David,

You are to Constitutional scholarship what Dana is to well any thought
whatsoever. The power of impeachment is limited, or should be, to very
extreme circumstances. Now that brings us to what impeachment is,
impeachment is not the removal from office of a person, it is the
bringing of charges before the Senate for trial and to see if there is
sufficient evidence to warrant removal. Now if the House finds that
there is enough evidence to warrant brining charges that are based on
real not imagined faults. The Court is charged with the interpretation
of laws within the confines of the Constitution. The fact is that just
because the Court has ruled in such a way as to be unpopular with some
or even most people is not an impeachable offense. The best someone
can do is find a test case brings it before the Court and asks for
reconsideration of the Facts. The Court has changed its course before
and maybe it will this time, though for the most part I would not hold
my breath.
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Bob LeChevalier

External


Since: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 4011



(Msg. 15) Posted: Wed May 26, 2004 2:15 am
Post subject: Re: Override the Supreme Court? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)

Draccus874.TakeThisOut@netscape.net wrote:
>The fact is that just
>because the Court has ruled in such a way as to be unpopular with some
>or even most people is not an impeachable offense.

The problem with this claim is that one of the Founders, Hamilton,
pretty much expressly said the opposite in the Federalist Papers 81

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed81.htm
>It may in the last place be observed that the supposed danger of
> judiciary encroachments on the legislative authority, which has been
> upon many occasions reiterated, is in reality a phantom. Particular
> misconstructions and contraventions of the will of the legislature
> may now and then happen; but they can never be so extensive as to
> amount to an inconvenience, or in any sensible degree to affect the
> order of the political system. This may be inferred with certainty,
> from the general nature of the judicial power, from the objects to
> which it relates, from the manner in which it is exercised, from its
> comparative weakness, and from its total incapacity to support its
> usurpations by force. And the inference is greatly fortified by the
> consideration of the important constitutional check which the power
> of instituting impeachments in one part of the legislative body, and
> of determining upon them in the other, would give to that body upon
> the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete
> security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of
> deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would
> hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while
> this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption,
> by degrading them from their stations. While this ought to remove all
> apprehensions on the subject, it affords, at the same time, a cogent
> argument for constituting the Senate a court for the trial of
> impeachments.

Meanwhile of course, Federalist 78 thoroughly backs up the power of
the courts to make the sorts of rulings that they make, interpreting
the law, and sometimes ruling laws unconstitutional.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed78.htm

lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab.TakeThisOut@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
 >> Stay informed about: Override the Supreme Court? 
Back to top
Login to vote
Display posts from previous:   
Related Topics:
Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction - http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html Eliminate Federal Court Jurisdiction by Rep. Ron Paul, MD The President's recent announcement that he supports a constitutional amendment defining marriage has intensified the gay marriage debate. It seems sa...

time bar - HI, Do federal insured student loan have a time bar on them? Like a statute of limitations on them? How many years can they go after me for non payment? Thanks

Do the references on your promisory note have to be US Cit.. - Hi, I recently received my financial aid award letter detailing what sort of financial aid I would be eligible for. Now I have to sign the Master Promisory note (MPN) from New York State Higher Education Services Corporation for my federal student..

Bankruptcy Reform: A humanely cynical proposal - As Congress struggles to agree on the exact wording of a much harsher bankruptcy statute (now commonly referred to as "BARF" even though it hasn't been enacted yet), I would like to propose an alternative. My alternative is simultaneously hars...

Can my defaulted student loan be bought from the government - I defaulted on a stafford loan several years back and it was turned over to the Dept. of Justice. Since August of 2000, I've been making payments, and the current balance is just under $10,000. Since I was in default in ligitation, my financial aid..
   Your Students Forum and Resource Site! (Home) -> Government Grants All times are: Pacific Time (US & Canada) (change)
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Page 1 of 9

 
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



[ Contact us | Terms of Service/Privacy Policy ]