Posted on 05/01/2016 7:27:57 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
I heard somewhere that the Connecticut birth control statute was not being enforced and that Griswold was a set-up case to get the court to do just what they did.
This is what makes Scalia's untimely death so frustrating. He was one of the few Justices - including so-called conservatives - who got this, that the Court is not supposed to make policy/political decisions.
Indeed.
A large portion of my political activism is necessarily devoted to the disabusing of folks of the lies associated with the fallacy of judicial supremacy.
It is my contention that we will never again reclaim our republic unless and until we and our representatives in the legislative and executive branches learn to tell usurping judges to go to hell.
We did so here in Iowa when we used our state constitutional provisions for retention elections to throw out three state supreme court judges who imposed "gay marriage" on our state. But the other necessary step of impeaching the other four judges was neglected because of the cowardice of Republican leaders in the Iowa House. I helped write the impeachment articles, which were submitted via my state rep. The GOP buried those resolutions in subcommittee, never to be seen again.
Colorado tanker: "This is what makes Scalia's untimely death so frustrating.
He was one of the few Justices - including so-called conservatives - who got this..."
Thanks for a great discussion on this.
It's another reason why a Hillary election would be disastrous for whatever's left of our Free Republic.
So, not trying to hijack a Civil War thread, but considering the consequences that flowed from past SCOTUS decisions such as Dred-Scott: are there names known by the wider public (i.e., yours truly) of candidates fully qualified to replace Justice Scalia?
I understand Donald Trump offered to delegate selection of judicial nominees to Heritage Foundation. That got my attention and served to ease my #NeverTrump inclination.
I will hijack the thread one last time, but I believe I can put into a relevant historical context for our discussion here.
On the issue of Judicial Review, I want to make it clear that I am very much in favor of the concept. I believe the ability of the Supreme Court to declare acts of other branches and of the states to be void if they contradict the Constitution is the single most important factor the kept us from becoming another Banana Republic or collection of Banana Republics. Without the concept of Judicial Review, and the Court acting as the protector of the Constitution as the higher or supreme law of the land, our Constitution would have very quickly become a dead letter, and with it the Rule of Law would also have died.
Look at McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden. Without those two decisions establishing federal supremacy and the powers of Congress, our federal system would in effect have been stillborn. We would have gone back to a political system in all practical effects little different than existed under the Articles of Confederation. Ultimately, we would have been a collection of competing independent nations rather than a single entity.
In addition, you could not trust Congress or the President to honor the Constitution. Case in point; the Congressional “gag rule” prohibiting debate of slavery on the floor of the House of Representatives. The “gag rule” was clearly unconstitutional under Article I Section 6 and the First Amendment. Yet Congress passed and enforced it on their own members. The Dred Scott decision, as bad as it was, influenced the decisions of two Presidents that they could not act unilaterally against slavery, as it would be unconstitutional. Even before the “gag rule,” there was the issue of “banning” distribution of abolitionist pamphlets in the south. President Jackson favored a Congressional statute authorizing postmasters to seize and destroy the materials, but Calhoun balked at the thought of this exercise of Federal power inside of a sovereign state. Calhoun favored state law directed at the postmasters, as a way of circumventing that issue and the First Amendment, which at the time did not apply to the states. Jackson didn’t like the idea of a state issuing orders to Federal officials, so nothing was formally implemented. Federal postmasters did exercise their own initiative to seize and destroy the pamphlets, but nobody seemed concerned about the First Amendment violations.
Also, consider that without the concept of Judicial Review, Brown would have gone to segregated schools, Gideon would not have an attorney, Miranda would be interrogated after asking for an attorney or declining to speak, and Mapp would be convicted on evidence unlawfully seized. These are very real checks on the power of government. Without Judicial Review, what real checks would there be?
Bit what tempered the exercise of Judicial Review was the concept of Judicial Restraint. Even before Marbury v. Madison, in Calder v. Bull (1797), the Court declared that it would not rule on questions of state constitutional law. After Marbury, in Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, the Court held that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states, only the Federal government. The Court later developed doctrines of case & controversy, standing, and political question, which kept the Court from deciding issues not best decided by Courts.
The tension over the proper scope of Judicial Review was seen as early as Calder v. Bull. In his majority opinion, Justice Chase intimated that the Court could strike down a statute based on principles of “natural law.” In an opinion concurring in result, Justice Iredell disagreed, and stated that the Court could only look at the text of the Constitution to determine if the statute was in violation. For most of the tenure of the Supreme Court, Justice Iredell’s doctrine governed, but it has now clearly switched to Justice Chase’s, and with predictably subjective political results. That doesn’t mean that the concept of Judicial Review is bad, but the application in the present context is, because the doctrines of Judicial Restraint have withered.
So, I guess I got it back somewhat to our historical context.
As for the loss of Justice Scalia, the judiciary as a whole will miss the clarity of his thought and his relentless logic. I would have enjoyed spending an evening talking to that man. Or better and more likely, listening to him. As for his replacement, the use of the Heritage Foundation to make recommendations is an excellent idea. I don’t know any specific judges I would favor for the Court, but I would trust those folks to make good assessments.
Hey, I’m available.
The problem is not with the Court’s right and authority to decide the cases that come before them according to the Constitution. That authority belongs to them, or, as Marshall said so clearly in Marbury vs. Madison, their oath is “worse than solemn mockery.”
The problem is with the idea that the Court gets to decide what is constitutional for the other branches, and to enforce their opinion as “the law of the land,” and as being superior to the actual law of the land, which is the Constitution.
This whole judicial supremacist idea is, in fact, a coup d’etat against constitutional, republican self-government.
“I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government...At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”
— President Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address
Hijack it all you want, but I'm not taking it to Havana.
Thanks, I agree with Lincoln, and hereby recommend henkster for Supreme Court Justice.
And Homer, let’s head for Havana, I need a vacation.
;-)
Previously we discussed the caning of Senator Charles Sumner. We are approching the annverary of that event, May 19, 1856. He was giving a speech titled “The Crime Against Kansas” at the time of the incident. Here is a link from the US Senate website with the text of that speech:
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/CrimeAgainstKSSpeech.pdf
Very cool. I made a note to re-up your post here on the 19th and tweet the link for the approximately zero peoples who follow my #160YearsAgo hashtag thingy.
Cars Crossing the Mississippi – 1
Why Jewesses are Beautiful – 1
To the People of Massachusetts – 2
National Conventions – 2
Killing by a Member of Congress – 2
Chicopee News – 2
Kansas Affairs – 2
None of your ironic journalistic pose of objectivity here:
“A diabolical attempt was made to destroy an express train on the Southern road, near Chicago, the other day. Some wretch placed a pile of ties and rails across the track and chained them down. The thing was discovered in season to prevent a sacrifice of human life, but a car load of valuable horses were thrown from the track, and sixteen of them killed.”
(s/b “car load ... WAS thrown” and “sixteen of them WERE killed.”)
So grateful for your history lessons Homer ........ thank you.
I'm happy to pass them along. Grateful to the Chicopee Public Library for making this series available. Did you check out the pg 1 story on 'Cars Crossing the Mississippi'? The latest wonder of the world!
“Dang, that was lucky. Doggone near lost a four hundred dollar handcar.”
Ha!
Yes ..... can understand the fear back then....had to be like orville and wilbur getting off the ground per se.
I print the pdf files to read at work. Historical news offsets my angst at the current presstitutional garbage we’re fed in todays version.
Thanks again.
“Horses, we can’t afford to lose no horses, send a couple of Ni....s.”
*snicker*
Sad about the horses, though. I wonder if they ever caught the diabolical wretch who did it.
Previously we discussed the caning of Senator Charles Sumner. We are approaching the anniverary of that event, May 19, 1856. He was giving a speech titled “The Crime Against Kansas” at the time of the incident. Here is a link from the US Senate website with the text of that speech:
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.