Sadly, I don't even have to look up the party of the sponsors.

Please excuse my language but...what the f**k is the Supreme Court for, then? Yeah, why didn't we have this ruling in 2000? I've got a major mistake they made. Sonsofabitches!!!

WOW, I am not shocked by this at all, the only way for this stupidity to end is to get the Republicans out of office. I am sure this has little chance of getting through, but that does not excuse it when there was intent by the sponsoring party for trying it in the first place. :mad:

[ March 18, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

I suspect Tom Delay (TX-R) is behind this evil-doing.

Come now, folks. The Democrats would love this if they disagreed with a Supreme Court decision, so don't lay the fault at the doorsteps of the Republicans.

Congress does have the authority to determine just what types of cases federal courts may review. However, to counter a Supreme Court decision, the main method has been to amend the U.S. Constitution. If Congress is so determined to reverse a decision, let them choose that route. There is no need for this stupid bill.

Not only is there no need for this bill, it is also plainly unconstitutional. Reversing a supreme court decision would be an exercise of the judicial power, committed by Article III of the Constitution to the courts.

Congress could give itself this power, but only by amending the Constitution.

This whole notion of "judicial activism" is little more than an attempt by Republican politicians to paint judges who hand down decisions with which Republicans disagree as "liberals" (or, the political equivalent of the L word).

One can argue, ski, that such judicial review of a law's constitutionality is not mentioned at all by the Constitution but claimed by the Supreme Court in one of their own decisions, the famous Marbury v. Madison. This whole thing can be quite interesting to debate, kind of a circular argument.

[ March 18, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Bull hooey. I seem to recall one major Supreme Court decision in particular that most Dems disagreed with, yet they didn't try to alter the Checks and Balances that makes our system of government work.

Oh, I'm talking about the installation of GWB to the office of President.

[ March 18, 2004, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: maxallen ]

As maxallen said, isn't part of the point of having a Supreme Court to keep the other branches of government from gaining too much power? And isn't the Supreme Court's job to hand down rulings which may not be popular?

This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard of, save making homosexuality a crime.

It's the usual right-wing attempt to change laws and statutes to suit whatever positions they take. They do the same with the courts, yet call it "judicial activism" if they don't get their way. These people wouldn't know conservatisim if it bit them on the *ss. They're actually Stalinistic in their outlook.

But what would be perfect is if they actually passed this inane law, only to have it STRUCK DOWN by the Supreme Court. What would happen then?

[ March 18, 2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

"Judicial Activism" and "States Rights" are code words. Judicial Activism is used to describe decisions made by judges that a politician disagrees with. States rights are invoked only when the politician agrees with the actions taken by the state. I don't believe any federal politicians really have a blanket dislike of judicial activism or a passion for states rights.

[ March 18, 2004, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: JC ]

If a Republican was covered in shit, MIB would defend him from being charged for smelling badly. You, sir, make me sick!

[ March 19, 2004, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: bobby78751 ]

Jesus H Christ! Bobby! Where is that comment for MIB coming from? If you disagree with him, fine. But this "you make me sick" comment is uncalled for.

Instead of throwing insults. Why don't you try posting your rationale and see if your argument can be persuasive?

MIB's last post was not defending republicans at all. It was a simple rumination on the truth surrounbding the genesis of judicial review as "discovered" in Marbury vs Madison. Until that case, the notion of judicial review was not a widely held one.

on a different topic..... do I see tha right? Bobby's member number is 1700something. but he already has like 2500 posts? Dude!

anyway back to the topic.... This HB won't go anywhere. as this is trying to circumvent a long established understanding of the constitutional division of powers amongst judicial, legislative and executive. an understanding long accepted by all involved, including the citizenry.

as such .... there is no need to get our panties in a wad. This sad attempt at legislation proposed, sadly, by the not so honorable gentleman from Kentucky, Ron Lewis (less than a stellar intellect) will not be allowed to amendment the constitution while bypassing the amending process.

speaking as a republican.... this is really a pathetic attempt on the part of the sponsors.

[ March 18, 2004, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: ung ]

The fact that Marbury v. Madison was decided and left unchallenged for 200 years makes it absolute legal reality. Probably because our law is an offshoot of British law, and they don't write down anything. Everything is an interlocking series of precedents and parlaimentary procedures. While there are many out there who might like to argue, unless the Constitution is entirely changed, the Supreme Court will always be the final arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional. Another interesting case that has also never been challenged is the infamous case of Andrew Jackson entirely ignoring the supreme court and announcing that if they wanted to enforce their ruling they were welcome to use their army to do so (or something like that).

Apparently you don't read many of MIB's posts, or maybe just feeling a little parental this evening.

While Bobby's comment was certainly heartfelt and hard for me to disagree with, he just has a harder time ignoring MIB than some of the rest of us sometimes when it comes to the crapola spewed forth from "his honor".

In an earlier post of MIB's on this thread supporting this republican piece of garbage, he DID say the Democrats would do the same thing if they disagreed with SCOTUS (which I beleive they did in the last election, but did not resort to such measures) and not to lay this at the GOP's feet. This totally ignores the fact that it is indeed a GOP bill covered with manure.

Or ung, maybe you are still one of the few believers that MIB is a federal judge and feel he deserves a little more reverence? For the most part, posters reap what they sow on this board and the moderators take care of the rest.

Wrong as usual, horny. Perhaps you should go back and reread my posts above. I didn't call this a "stupid bill" for nothing.

I like my Constitution and the Supreme Court's role regarding it just the way they are, thank-you-very-much.

You really ought to get off this obsessive dislike for me. It's clouding your judgment regarding my posts.

At least Ung understood just what I meant. It's pretty pathetic when someone can't even come here and debate issues like judicial review. My entire point in my reply to skiguy was just that--trying to stir debate over judicial review itself. Instead, I've got bobby here telling me I'm sick because I want to simply discuss what was determined by Marubury. His comments weren't heartfelt; they were just plain ignorant. Then I've got you here trying to do the same by attacking the messenger, so to speak.

The childish and petty behavior of some folks here never ceases to amaze me.

[ March 18, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Hear no evil, see no evil....blah blah "your honor".

Posted by MIB
Actually, if you take your own advice and read the post, Bobby said, "You, sir, make me sick!"

He never said you were sick... wink

[ March 18, 2004, 09:55 PM: Message edited by: Denver Fan ]

Indeed, Denver. I stand corrected. NOW I think I'm sick.

Oh, the hypocrisy!

You mean childish behavior like someone claiming to be a federal judge?
Oh, how petty.

So a decision by the Supreme Court may not be the final word on an issue? I thought that it was...pardon my ignorance...I get what you are saying about it being a circular argument, but it sounds like fun.

Is this "power" of the Supreme Court implied in the constitution and regularly interpreted as valid? If not, has congress worked to overturn Supreme Court decisions in the past? (I expect it has, and can thing of a few instances where it might have been tried, but again, have never really thought about this situation, taking for granted the Court's authority over legal issues).

Not that I would agree, but it seems to me they would have tried this to deal with Roe vs. Wade.

I cannot imagine that congress's interpretation of a legal matter would be an improvement of a situation. It would be a cool debate, though!

In debates at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia, the Framers argued about just what powers the Supreme Court would have. Moreover, there were many arguments about just who would decide if/when a law was constitutional. Many Framers wanted Congress to be the arbiters of such things. While the Framers ultimately decided NOT to specifically grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review, many Framers did admit that they personally believed the Court should have such powers. The Federalist Papers discuss this line of thinking, revealing that this was the consensus of many of the Framers.

The Framers also were firm believers that when it comes down to it, however, the final authority on the government's powers was left to The People via their representatives in Congress. This is why, when all is said and done, Congress ultimately has the final say on everything. Look at impeachment, the veto power, the amendment process, etc. While there are checks and balances, when push comes to shove, Congress has the edge.

Hummer, absent Congress removing from the Court's review the authority to hear certain cases, only a constitutional amendment can reverse a Supreme Court decision (assuming, of course, the Court doesn't overturn its own decision).

Congress has, indeed, passed constitutional amendments, and states have ratified several, to counter Supreme Court decisions. A couple examples:

1.) The infamous Dred Scott decision was never reversed by the Court. It took a Civil War and the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to nullify that terrible decision.

2.) In a desire to "tax the wealthy," an income tax was passed by Congress in 1894. In 1895, in Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust, Co., 157 US 429, 158 US 601, the Supreme Court declared the income tax unconstitutional. In response to this, public agitation for an Income Tax on the wealthy began in earnest. In the Presidential campaign of 1896, the Democrat Party became the first political party to endorse an Income Tax on the wealthy. The Democrat Party was soon followed that year by the Populist Party, the middle-of-the-road Populists, the Farmers’ Alliance and Industrial Union, the Socialist Labor Party and the Silver Republicans, as well as by Democratic Presidential candidate William Jennings Bryan. This led to the 16th Amendment.

[ March 19, 2004, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: MIB ]