Congress Seeks Authority to Overturn Supreme Court Decisions

Talon News ^ | 04/16/04 | Jimmy Moore

[coffeebreak]

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Rep. Ron Lewis (R-KY) has offered legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives that would allow Congress to overturn future U.S. Supreme Court decisions by a super majority vote.

"The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act," or H.R. 3920, would give Congress permission to override certain U.S. Supreme Court rulings if two-thirds of both houses of Congress vote for it.

Lewis said he drafted this legislation to combat the activist judges who have been "legislating from the bench" in recent years.

"America's judicial branch has become increasingly overreaching and disconnected from the values of everyday Americans," Lewis observed in a statement.

Lewis states the judiciary has ceased interpreting the law and is now making law.

"The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate," Lewis continued, referring to the controversial ruling issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Court late last year that legalizes gay marriage in that state beginning next month.

"These actions usurp the will of the governed by allowing a select few to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping our nation's traditions," Lewis concluded.

Restoring a proper amount of checks and balances is the key to this legislation, Lewis added.

This legislation would be limited to rulings dealing with the constitutionality of bills passed by Congress only.

Yet, Lewis said the American people deserve to have their representatives in Congress decide for them whether or not a judicial ruling is right or not.

"The framers of the Constitution were advocates of serious debate who believed that the deliberation of the political process should always be open to the people," Lewis expressed. "As the courts continue to expand their power of judicial review, I believe Congress, as the people's branch of representative government, should take steps to equally affirm our authority to interpret constitutional issues."

Referring to the historic 1803 U.S. Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, Lewis said the U.S. Constitution does not allow the right judicial review because it would threaten the equality of the three branches of government.

"As judicial power expands, Congressional power contracts," Lewis revealed. "This is especially true when the power to interpret the Constitution rests in the hands of activist judges anxious to find the latest 'right' hiding between the lines of our founding document."

"The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism Act" has 22 co-sponsors and is currently under consideration in the House Judiciary Committee as well as the House Rules Committee.

[P-Marlowe]

Duplicate thread.

Congress Seeks Authority to Overturn Supreme Court Decisions ^

[DCPatriot]

Even if this passed, the weanies in Congress would be afraid to use it.

BS!

They voted to ignore the LEGAL Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton.

If they had a strong majority, Gore would be President today, despite the SCOTUS ruling.

[Bernard Marx]

If the legislature wishes to limit the power of the Courts, it has the authority, now, to remove the Courts from specific jurisdiction over specific areas of the law.

By George, I think you've got it! And the sooner the better.

[Luircin]

To take from some other place that I'm unable to remember... this would unfortunately give Congress to amend the Constitution with a 66% majority. If the rats manage to take a 66% majority in both houses, I can almost garuantee that there will be a gun ban at the very least.

And even if it's not that extreme, what's to stop Congress from giving themselves lifelong terms?

[coffeebreak]

I searched on keywords and words in the title and found nothing. I have seen this problem before. There are serious problems with this site's search feature.

People review this site at different times of the day. Many would not ever see the earlier post so a duplicate on an issue this hot is not a problem, imo.

[Libertina]

I would prefer the fix be nomination and confirmation of truely good judges... GW Bush must be re-elected and get conservatives on the bench. (Please Mr. President, choose carefully and NOT to "get along.")

[DameAutour]

I don't agree with this. It's not as if the people don't have options.

1. Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of courts.

2. They can impeach activist judges.

3. They can amend the Constitution.

These are just three of the Constitutional methods already available to deal with the problem of bad Supreme Court decisions.

[dila813]

"This legislation would be limited to rulings dealing with the constitutionality of bills passed by Congress only."

This I don't like, I think this statement may go to far in some ways and not far enough in other ways.

Think about it

[Iwo Jima]

The recent actions taken by courts in Massachusetts and elsewhere are demonstrative of a single branch of government taking upon itself the singular ability to legislate," Lewis continued, referring to the controversial ruling issued by the Massachusetts Supreme Court late last year that legalizes gay marriage in that state beginning next month.

How can any act of Congress have any bearing on what a state supreme court rules about that state's laws or consitution?

Give me a specific example of how this law is supposed to work and I will give you specific reasons why this law is either unnecessary or even dangerous. Congress and state legislatures have all of the powers they need to rein in activist judges. They just don't want to use them. This law will likewise not be used except by a congress hell-bent on destroying the constitution.

[coffeebreak]

Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution:

Clause 1: 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;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Congress does have authority to regulate the Supreme Court. If the Congress passed a law that says the Congress can overrule the Supreme Court by a 2/3 vote of both houses, what would the Supreme Court use as the constitutional argument against the law if it ended up before them? That the Congress doesn't have authority to regulate the Supreme Court? Obviously the Congress DOES have the authority.

[coffeebreak]

This law will likewise not be used except by a congress hell-bent on destroying the constitution.

The judges already ARE destroying the Constitution. The people (Congress) are trying to stop them and they have the constitutional authority to pass the law that's proposed.

[Porterville]

Justice Marshall screwed it up nearly 200 years ago, damn bastard. Where is he buried? I think I might wish to take a wizz on his tombstone.

[coffeebreak]

1. Congress can restrict the jurisdiction of courts.

They also have the authority to regulate. The 'people' run this country NOT the courts. Passing a law that says it takes 2/3 of both houses to overrule the court is not a radical law.

[coffeebreak]

How can any act of Congress have any bearing on what a state supreme court rules about that state's laws or consitution?

Mr. Lewis was using the ruling by the SJC of Massachusetts as an example of judicial activism.

[herzo]

Congress has always had the power to overturn the courts....it's called impeachment. For the congress to have the ability to overturn a judicial decision would be to shred what is left of the U.S. Constitution.

We need to push for strict interpretation of the Constitution as a basis for the appointment of judges.

[bimbo]

Something MUST be done to rein in activist judges.

Something can be done now by Congress: Impeachment for incompetency.

Tie the activity of these activists to the political activities of a political party, and make the politicians pay at the voting booth – they’ll start appointing better judges.

By all means, get the names of local activist judges out to the public and stop their advancement early – before they advance to higher courts. Many times local citizens see the work of these judges in liberal rulings and felon releases and child molester releases, but never associate these activities with the name of a Judge.

[John Jorsett]

I understand the sentiment, but this would be dangerous. I live in California, which is a good example of what happens when the extreme whacko left gets put in charge. What if, God forbid, something ever happened to produce such a group of nutlogs in the Congress? Would I want them to operate completely unchecked? No. Supreme Court justices serve for many years and would derail the more far-out stuff such a Congress produced, hopefully long enough for the people came to to their senses and elect some better representatives.

[Clint Williams]

Macdonough's Song
"As easy as A B C"--A Diversity of Creatures"

Whether the State can loose and bind
In Heaven as well as on Earth:
If it be wiser to kill mankind
Before or after the birth--
These are matters of high concern
Where State-kept schoolmen are;
But Holy State (we have lived to learn)
Endeth in Holy War.


Whether The People be led by The Lord,
Or lured by the loudest throat:
If it be quicker to die by the sword
Or cheaper to die by vote--
These are things we have dealt with once,
(And they will not rise from their grave)
For Holy People, however it runs,
Endeth in wholly Slave.


Whatsoever, for any cause,
Seeketh to take or give
Power above or beyond the Laws,
Suffer it not to live!
Holy State or Holy King--
Or Holy People's Will--
Have no truck with the senseless thing.
Order the guns and kill!
Saying-- after-- me:--

Once there was The People--Terror gave it birth;
Once there was The People and it made a Hell of Earth
Earth arose and crushed it. Listen, 0 ye slain!
Once there was The People--it shall never be again!