Cheers.
"Hello Vicomte13,
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. I haven't seen you in a while, hope all is great.
I would very much like your take on this legislation, especially in regards to abortion.
Cheers."
Thank you.
I have been around and about on some of the religion threads, but on things political am in Watch Mode.
I am watching to see two things in Iraq: the election, and the airstrikes on Syria that will follow a few months afterwards if the Syrians don't knock off all support for terrorists NOW.
[And, by "knock off all support", I do not mean provide plausible deniability for continued terrorist support. The US is not playing games anymore. If the US says you support terrorists, you support terrorists even if you don't, and you get bombed. So Syria needs to be overt about NOT supporting terrorists. Otherwise the place will be wrecked in July. Air Force and Navy Air are currently underutilized, and the US need not invade Syria to topple it. Airstrikes will do there.)
On abortion, I am waiting to see Specter confirmed. Then waiting to see the second Supreme retire and to see if Specter turns out to be the treacherous fellow I expect. At that point, the Republicans will have to choose between supporting the strict constructionist judiciary which will give us an end to most of Roe v. Wade, by expelling Specter from his chairmanship, or supporting Specter.
I expect they will support Specter and then lie about not being able to do anything to try and keep the base together. In which case I will watch Hillary Clinton take the oath of office in 2008 as the pro-life tide runs out.
But I hope I am too pessimistic by half in that regard, and that the Devil is not so strong.
I will revise the legislation you have proposed I look at, and comment later.
Joyeux Noel et Bonne Annee,
V XIII.
I reviewed it, per your request.
I understand the frustration behind it.
However, the proposed bill is unconstitutional and will be struck down by a unanimous Supreme Court. Congress has the power to limit appellate jurisdiction, but to limit Supreme Court power to review acts for Constitutionality. (Sez who? The Supreme Court. Marbury v. Madison is not in the Constitution at all, but that cat ain't gettin' walked back, I guar-awn-teee!)
There are two direct ways to go about dealing with Imperial Judicial overreach. One is a flat refusal by the President to execute a decision that, in the opinion of the Executive Branch, is unconstitutional. The only recourse in such a case is to impeach the President. If his party controls Congress, that cannot be done.
This is the Jacksonian solution.
The other is for Congress to start impeaching Federal Judges for abuses of power. Judges have constitutional authority, but that authority does not extend to abuses of power. So, when Judges start issuing ridiculous decisions, prosecute them for those decisions. Remember, impeachment is a POLITICAL punishment, whose sole punitive result can be removal from office.
Some judge orders the Boy Scouts off of public land? The executive branch stays the order, and Congress impeaches the judge and removes him from office.
The difference between this approach, which is brutal, and the legislative approach proposed is that this approach is constitutional, but the legislative approach is not.
Anyway, the bill will die in a Senate filibuster if cooler heads don't prevail in the House and the Senate.
The only real solution is to pack the judiciary with strict constructionist judges who self-limit. The second-best solution is the precedent set by Jackson and Lincoln of simply disregarding Supreme Court decisions that the President thinks are unconstitutional.