Nixon v. United States - 506 U.S. 224 (1993)

Justia.com ^ | 10/1993 | SCOTUS

[Usagi_yo]

In order for an issue to be justiciable by a United States federal court, all of the following conditions must be met:

.....

Excerpted from Wikiyouknowwho, but also contained within the Nixon vs United States 506 U.S 224

4. The suit must not be seeking judgment upon a political question.

Political questions involve matters where there is:

"a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue);

"a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it";

an "impossibility of deciding [a matter] without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion";

an "impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government";

"an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made"; or

a "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.".

[Usagi_yo]

Reference: Nixon vs. United States 506 U.S. 224 (1993) No 91-740.

Reference: Baker v. Carr - 369 U.S. 186 (1962) No 6.

[Usagi_yo]

The SCOTUS opinion on inserting itself into the political process.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3084789/posts

[ConorMacNessa]

Doctrines the Courts use to dodge cases too hot to handle:

"Political Question."
"Ripeness."
"Standing to sue."
"Failure to exhaust Administrative Remedies."
"Non-justiciable."
Et cetera, ad nauseam.

America demands Justice for the Fallen of Benghazi!

Genuflectimus non ad principem sed ad Principem Pacis!

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. (Isaiah 49:1 KJV)

[Lurking Libertarian]

Doctrines the Courts use to dodge cases too hot to handle

As they should. "Hot" issues are the ones it is most important to leave to the elected branches of government.

When the liberal judges of the Warren Court sought to get the courts to overrule the President and the Congress on issues like the Vietnam War, it was the conservative justices who pushed back with the doctrines of standing, mootness, political question, exhaustion and the like. And it was good that they succeeded to the extent they did.

[Ray76]

And which of the items you’ve listed do you claim apply?

[Usagi_yo]

Item #1. Clearly another branch of government is tasked with answering the eligibility and certification.

Item #2. This is clearly new territory so part 2 of item #2 applies, as for part 1, I would argue that there *is* judicially discoverable items here, but only with regards to the execution of responsibility of another branch, not eligibility.

Item #3. I don’t understand.

Item #4. Certainly SCOTUS getting involved would encroach on another branch (the meaning of respect in this political sense), not in an insultingly and disregardful manner.

Item #5. With the election certified, the President sworn in, it’s clear that the political decision was already made and that SCOTUS should adhere to that. Weak imho. But the question itself presented by #5 is political itself so subject to ones affiliations.

Item #6. Read multifarious as Congress. Read embarrassment as derision placed upon the court. In otherwords, if SCOTUS, itself decided, Congress can tell it to go pound sand. Weakening SCOTUS.

SCOTUS has no enforcement provisions. It’s sole recourse is public opinion. If it kept inserting itself into political questions it would lessen the stature for the court and future court.

[Usagi_yo]

I cannot parse this sentence, somebody explain:

an “impossibility of deciding [a matter] without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion”;

[Ray76]

"a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department" (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue); The Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land (Article VI). Article II is a part of the Constitution, it's mandatory imperatives are the Law. Matters of law are settled by the Judicial Branch and no other Branch (Article III).

"a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it"; Determination of Facts are essential & fundamental tasks of the Judiciary. The Judiciary finds Fact and applies Law.

an "impossibility of deciding [a matter] without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion"; There is no question of "policy determination" here

an "impossibility of a court's undertaking independent resolution without expressing lack of the respect due coordinate branches of government"; Finding Fact and applying Law are solely the province of the Judiciary, and of no other Branch

"an unusual need for unquestioning adherence to a political decision already made"; or An ineligible person pretending to be President can not reasonably be accepted

a "potentiality of embarrassment from multifarious pronouncements by various departments on one question.". Irrelevant

 

1) I hope you realize this case concerns the impeachment of a judge.

2) The Senate's conduct of the impeachment proceedings was contested, the Supreme Court correctly held that the conduct of the impeachment was for the Senate to decide. Impeachment is a political act, the Judiciary is not involved. The Judiciary resolves legal questions, this power is theirs exclusively. Eligibility is a legal question handled by the Judiciary.

[Usagi_yo]

I disagree. Each and every point made there still stands. Except I cannot vouch for item #3 because I don’t understand it.

It is a pure political process. Those empowered to remedy the situation have decided that the election was fair, that Obama was eligible.

Essentially, your argument is that there is a Grand Conspiracy shielding Obama from Judicial review of his eligibility.

I reject that.

[Ray76]

Once again you dispute but do not refute.

[Ray76]

Article III clearly states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority”.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity,

arising under this Constitution,
the Laws of the United States,
and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority

A question regarding a person’s eligibility is certainly a case in Law arising under the Constitution. Article II requires no enabling legislation.

Please show specifically where “a textually demonstrable constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department” (meaning that the U.S. Constitution requires another branch of government to resolve questions regarding the issue)” authorizes a branch other than the Judiciary to decide matters of law.

Please show specifically how there is no “judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving” questions of eligibility. For example, what obstacles exist to prevent a determination of age?

Please explain how Article II is subordinate to “policy”

[morphing libertarian]

Defining nbc is not inserting into the political process. It is interpreting the constitution.

[Usagi_yo]

So? What’s your point?

-> show me where the constitution provides for removing a U.S President from Office through the Judicial Process rather than the Political Process of impeachment?

-> Judicial review is not an enumeration in the USCON. IT is a consquence of Marbury V. Madison. You cannot refute that, the SCOTUS has already weighed in on that issue. It is an instantiated duty, just like Congresses duty to certify elibility.

-> So tell us please why *all* the birther lawsuites get stopped dead in their tracks before they get to SCOTUS? And why do judges in good standing refuse to review the case?

Is it because of a grand conspiracy involving 50 Secretaries of State, some 535 electorates, 365 Congressmen, 100 Senator s and a Chief Justice of the Supreme court? Not to mention a complicit opposition party and opposition candidate?

OR is it because your the “birther” interpretation is wrong?

[Ray76]

The point? Conversation with you is pointless.

You’re the only one mentioning conspiracies.