Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bobby Jindal: ‘Let’s just get rid of the court’
MSNBC ^ | 6/27/2015 | Adam Howard

Posted on 06/27/2015 1:38:11 PM PDT by Bluewater2015

In the wake of Friday’s historic Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, Republicans did not hold back their rage – but few politicians went as far as 2016 candidate Gov. Bobby Jindal.

The Louisiana Republican, who launched a longshot bid for the presidency last week, suggested that the 5-4 ruling, which made same-sex marriage legal throughout the nation, was cause for disbanding the entire Supreme Court.

“The Supreme Court is completely out of control, making laws on their own, and has become a public opinion poll instead of a judicial body,” Jindal said in a statement on Friday. “If we want to save some money, let’s just get rid of the court."

“Marriage between a man and a woman was established by God, and no earthly court can alter that,” he added.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: 2016election; bobbyjindal; election2016; jindal; louisiana; marriage; overreach; scotus; searchworks; sodomites
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last
To: RobbyS
Corr3ecdtion: the jurisdiction of the Court could be limited.
81 posted on 06/27/2015 4:16:36 PM PDT by RobbyS (quotes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

bump

The Congress and President Ted could pass a statute taking marriage out of the federal and court purview.


82 posted on 06/27/2015 4:18:45 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: TomasUSMC
Back in the Sixties when Earl Warren was running roughshod over the Constitution, there was a suggestion to create a Court of Union one level higher than the Supreme Court. This would have meant that the Chief Justices of the states would meet en banc and review Supreme Court decisions and possibly overrule them.

The idea surfaced for a time, but then disappeared. It would have required a constitutional amendment, and the momentum in Congress wasn't there.

83 posted on 06/27/2015 4:20:29 PM PDT by Publius ("Who is John Galt?" by Billthedrill and Publius now available at Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

With all due respect I think your argument borders on the type of argument that Trey Gowdy gave for why we shouldn’t impeach Obama, because Biden would be worse. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the need to look ahead and examine the possible consequences of a particular action, but once war has broken out, the most important thing is to defeat the enemy. In war, and we are in a war, you don’t avoid bombing the sh*t out of the enemy because he might get mad at you and fire back. He’s already firing at you. This over obsession with what might occur if we start fighting back, leads to paralysis and inaction.


84 posted on 06/27/2015 4:33:54 PM PDT by mbrfl (fightingmad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Publius

It is now time for a Constitutional Convention. Once we win the White House. We have lost all common sense in this Country. Nothing to lose....babies are killed by the millions, marriage is regulated to the level of a drivers license .....voting doesn’t even need that.....on and on


85 posted on 06/27/2015 4:34:55 PM PDT by TomasUSMC (FIGHT LIKE WW2, WIN LIKE WW2. FIGHT LIKE NAM, FINISH LIKE NAM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: WHBates

Article III is very short but long enough for a tyrant.


86 posted on 06/27/2015 6:12:54 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lumper20

Are you considering throwing your flag in the trash can?


87 posted on 06/27/2015 6:14:35 PM PDT by Theodore R. (Liberals keep winning; so the American people must now be all-liberal all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

You don’t start with roberts.... You start with the stupid obammy nominees. And you kick out Ginsberg just because.... Roberts will come around if you do that.


88 posted on 06/27/2015 6:15:45 PM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EXCH54FE

Illinois already does this with their governors.


89 posted on 06/27/2015 6:17:17 PM PDT by cornfedcowboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cornfedcowboy

See, I knew it would work!!!!

Now we need to try it out with the Supreme Court. Two years on the bench, Eight years in JAIL!!!


90 posted on 06/27/2015 6:29:27 PM PDT by EXCH54FE (Hurricane 416,Feisty Old Vet !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg

I agree.


91 posted on 06/27/2015 7:16:29 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Conservatism: Now home to liars too. And we'll support them. Yea... GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Bluewater2015

Interesting point. I had always thought the SCOTUS was the place where such review should take place.

What’s your take on that?

Is it your take the SCOTUS should have no review of the other two branches?

Is Congress to trump the court in these matters, by your perception?

Under Clinton it seemed to me to become very clear that the SCOTUS had no power over him.


92 posted on 06/27/2015 7:22:28 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Conservatism: Now home to liars too. And we'll support them. Yea... GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Thanks RobbyS. My broad impression seems to conform to your perception of it. I’m certainly no expert on that matter, but this did fit with my impression of the events.


93 posted on 06/27/2015 7:24:32 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Conservatism: Now home to liars too. And we'll support them. Yea... GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: mbrfl

I believe action needs to be taken to get this Rogue Court under control. We’re in agreement there. I’m open to suggestions.

I don’t want to see the court gutted every four years as parties shift in and out of the White House.

I don’t want the body to be attacked by the Democrats simply because it objected to their Communist/Marxist/Socialist/or Islamist point of view.

They should have to operate within certain guidelines, and I think they’re way out of bounds here.

I understand your concern with regard to my views, but I’m not rigid on the subject. I just want to avoid an every four year range war that takes 3 years to resolve only to start over in another year.


94 posted on 06/27/2015 7:29:22 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Conservatism: Now home to liars too. And we'll support them. Yea... GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

On what grounds do you kick her out, if Roberts agrees with her?


95 posted on 06/27/2015 7:30:00 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Conservatism: Now home to liars too. And we'll support them. Yea... GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

She voted with the majority on this illegal ruling. Roberts didn’t.


96 posted on 06/27/2015 7:38:03 PM PDT by kjam22 (my music video "If My People" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74b20RjILy4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Fair enough.


97 posted on 06/27/2015 8:10:57 PM PDT by mbrfl (fightingmad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: mbrfl

Thanks.


98 posted on 06/27/2015 8:12:11 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Conservatism: Now home to liars too. And we'll support them. Yea... GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

I don’t like the homosexual ruling, and he came down right on that.

It’s the Obamacare ruling that was IMO even more blatant.

The legislation there didn’t allow for what Roberts did. He just basically rewrote the bill to suit he own opinion.

Even the Democrats had claimed the fee wasn’t a tax. Roberts declared it one and approved. IMO, that’s just an ass-hat move and he deserves to be removed from the court.


99 posted on 06/27/2015 8:14:17 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Conservatism: Now home to liars too. And we'll support them. Yea... GOPe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: fatnotlazy

So you’re saying candidates for the Supreme Court should campaign for the job, engage in endless fundraising, and be beholden to the unholy alliance of billionaire donors and LIVs who put them in office?
Methinks not.
Instead we must elect more quality congress people like Cruz who understand the Constitution and can reject activist nominees.
Personally, I’d love to see some of the great minds on FR run for Congress.


100 posted on 06/27/2015 8:48:09 PM PDT by mumblypeg (I've seen the future; brother it is murder. -L. Cohen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-106 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson