Posted on 12/29/2004 4:50:03 PM PST by Ed Current
The Supreme Court at year's end is in an odd period of stasis. There is a palpable feeling that someone hit the pause button, and no one is sure what will happen when the Court starts up again.
Will it join the Republican juggernaut that has strengthened its hold on the other branches, or will it remain defiantly, sometimes quirkily, contrarian -- as it was in June's enemy combatant cases and at other times this year?
And will the Court continue on its conservative path of state-oriented federalism, or will it reverse field, as it seemingly began to do in May's Tennessee v. Lane decision? Will it continue to embrace moderate or liberal social doctrines ranging from gay rights to abortion to affirmative action -- or begin, as the Bush administration hopes, to retrench?
The answer to those questions did not emerge from the 2004 election, and may not be much clearer in 2005. "It might become a united moderately liberal or a united strongly conservative Court," writes Georgetown University Law Center professor Mark Tushnet in a just-published comprehensive look at the Court, "A Court Divided: The Rehnquist Court and the Future of Constitutional Law." "The real impact of the Rehnquist Court lies in the decisions of the next Supreme Court."
Uncertainty abounds about the health and future of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who is battling thyroid cancer. The rest of the Court, for reasons unknown, has lagged in filling its calendar; an argument day in March may be canceled. And at the solicitor general's office, some of the six newly hired lawyers face the unheard-of prospect of not arguing a single case this term. There may not be enough to go around. The Court may issue fewer rulings than during any other term in recent memory.
Though things may be on hold now, the sense is strong that 2004 may be the final year in which the current nine justices sit together. Change is in the air. But what change?
The year 2004 affirmed a growing feeling among Court scholars and others that the Court is far from being in the grip of conservative Republicans, though seven of its members were appointed by GOP presidents. During the presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee tried to make the Supreme Court an issue. But instead of campaigning against the current Court, its slogan was "Save the Court," which, inadvertently or otherwise, telegraphed that the justices now serving have by and large pleased Democrats.
"This is a Republican Court only in the sense that Earl Warren was a Republican chief justice and William Brennan was a Republican associate justice," says Court scholar David Garrow. Liberals Warren and Brennan were appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower.
"Right now, rather than the least dangerous branch, the Supreme Court is the least conservative branch -- as a matter of political outcomes," says John Yoo, professor at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas who served in the Bush Justice Department.
Because of its centrist Republican appointees John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter and Anthony Kennedy, the Court has not always marched in the direction charted by Rehnquist and his conservative allies, Antonin Scalia and Thomas. O'Connor, who replaced the late Potter Stewart, has increasingly taken on some of Stewart's decision-making attributes, says Garrow -- moderate, practical and unpredictable.
"The Court is lagging behind other political developments," says Garrow, "and it's not that surprising, because the Republicans on the Court don't have all that much in common" with each other.
In the June 28 decision Rasul v. Bush, the four Republican-appointed moderates, led by Stevens, were joined by Clinton appointees Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer in ruling 6-3 that U.S. courts should have jurisdiction to consider challenges by foreign nationals detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. On the same day, in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Thomas was the only justice who fully embraced the Bush administration's arguments that the detention of enemy combatants was part of the president's war powers and should not be restricted by the Court.
But these high-profile votes should not obscure trends from 2004 that show the Court's conservatism in other areas, says Duke Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky. "Last year, the police won six of seven Fourth Amendment cases," Chemerinsky notes. "Overall, there is no doubt that the Rehnquist Court is conservative."
Chemerinsky also believes, however, that the impact of Republican domination of the other branches won't be felt on the Court until the next vacancy after Rehnquist, or the one after that. "If President [George W.] Bush can replace either Justice Stevens or Justice O'Connor, or both, in the next four years, the Republicans likely will see their agenda come to fruition."
For now, however, the Court is likely to remain an institution that above all reserves its right to have the final word, no matter which political party dominates the White House or Congress.
"Everyone is a judicial activist," Tushnet says of the current justices in his new book. "The Rehnquist Court has asserted, more strongly than the Warren Court, a primary role in enforcing the legal boundaries Congress has to respect."
If that is the case, then will the Court anytime soon reflect second-term Bush priorities or sensibilities?
THE FIRST TO LEAVE
The general expectation is that the ailing 80-year-old chief justice will be the first to leave. His departure may not bring much doctrinal change, given that President Bush is likely to replace him with a similarly minded justice. "It will not make a difference," says lawyer Bruce Fein, who helped screen judicial nominees in the Reagan Justice Department.
Liberal leaders who are gearing up for battle fervently disagree. "It is, in fact, possible to move the Court further to the right while replacing Rehnquist," says Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way. He points to votes in which Scalia and Thomas -- Bush's stated models for future nominations -- voted even more conservatively than Rehnquist.
Nan Aron, president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, also asserts that the life tenure of justices makes the impact of any new nominees momentous -- especially for chief justice. "This is not just for the moment," she said at a National Press Club debate on Dec. 16.
But the realities of Senate politics -- including threatened filibusters by Democrats -- may dilute the impact of a Rehnquist replacement by compelling Bush to pick a more moderate candidate either to replace Rehnquist, or to replace whichever current justice might be elevated to his seat. Justices Scalia, Thomas and O'Connor have been mentioned as possible Rehnquist replacements.
"If Rehnquist is the first to leave, the Supreme Court is almost certain to become more moderate, because the current Senate would not confirm a Rehnquistlike nominee. There will be no more stealth nominees that get past the Senate," says Florida International University College of Law professor Thomas Baker.
Bush opponents and supporters alike expect him to seek a "no surprises" nominee who will hew to a conservative line more closely than some of its past Republican nominees, such as Souter. But based on his Cabinet appointments and others, Bush may also be swayed by personal, intangible factors including personal rapport, making his nominees as unpredictable as others'.
"Republicans can appoint Republicans, but that is no guarantee that things will turn out as expected," says Garrow. "This is the White House that gave us Bernie Kerik for Homeland Security." The nomination of Kerik, former New York City police commissioner, was scuttled Dec. 10 after revelations about Kerik's private and professional life.
From the perspective of Court doctrine, examining where federalism stands at the end of 2004 may illustrate that it is as difficult to track the path of trends as it is to predict how nominees will perform. Just a year ago or so, federalism was viewed as one of the Rehnquist Court's strongest legacies. But now it may be unraveling -- or turning upside down.
By an unchanging 5-4 majority, the Court has trimmed back congressional power in relation to states. But in Tennessee v. Lane earlier this year, the Court said the federal Americans with Disabilities Act could be enforced against states to ensure access for the disabled to state courtrooms.
And in Ashcroft v. Raich, a case argued Nov. 29, the Court appears poised to give federal law enforcement the upper hand in a dispute over California's medical marijuana initiative. The states' rights argument did not seem to take hold with the Court in this instance.
Mindful of state initiatives including medical marijuana, some liberal groups are even embracing federalism now -- especially in light of electoral defeats at the federal level. If conservatives rule the White House and the Congress, the thinking goes, then states may be the only venues where they have a chance of success.
This contrasts sharply with the traditional view of federalism as a "states' rights" notion tainted by historic state resistance to racial integration. "Until recently, liberals haven't used the term at all. It was viewed as a bad thing," says Douglas Kendall of Community Rights Counsel, which usually represents state and local governments.
In a new book, "Redefining Federalism," Kendall notes that in some cases -- notably in the area of laws barring violence against women -- the Supreme Court has given states power they don't really want. He calls for a more-nuanced, "less political" allocation of power between state and federal governments.
One sign of the changed landscape on federalism came in this optimistic statement from Tim McFeeley, executive director of the Center for Policy Alternatives, which advocates for progressive state policies. Pointing to 2004 initiatives on boosting the minimum wage in Florida and Nevada and on fostering renewable energy in Colorado, McFeeley said, "For progressives, hope is in the states."
So much for Rehnquist's conservative legacy of elevating state power.
The question, whether an OPINION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT repugnant to the Constitution can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but, happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest. It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric had been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.
This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here, or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.
The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the FEDERAL COURTS are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any FEDERAL JUDICIAL MAJORITY OPINION repugnant to it; or, that the FEDERAL COURTS may alter the Constitution by an ordinary MAJORITY OPINION.
Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The Constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary FEDERAL JUDICIAL MAJORITY OPINION , and, like other OPINIONS, is alterable when the FEDERAL COURTS shall please to alter it.
If the former part of the alternative be true, then an UNCONSTITUTIONAL MAJORITY OPINION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT contrary to the Constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts on the part of the people to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.
Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently, the theory of every such government must be, that an OPINION OF THE U.S.SUPREME COURT, repugnant to the constitution, is void.
This theory is essentially attached to a written constitution, and is, consequently, to be considered by this court as one of the fundamental principles of our society. It is not therefore to be lost sight of in the further consideration of this subject.
If a MAJORITY OPINION OF THE U.S.SUPREME COURT, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, STATES, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not CONSTITUTIONAL does it constitute a rule as operative as if it were? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.
It is emphatically the province and duty of ALL WHO SWEAR AN OATH OF SUPPORT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION to say what the CONSTITUTION says.
So if a OPINION OF THE U.S.SUPREME COURT be in opposition to the Constitution; if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the PRESIDENT, CONGRESS AND THE STATE(S) must either decide that OPINION conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution; or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the OPINION; the PRESIDENT, CONGRESS AND STATE(S) must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of FEDERALISM.
If, then, the PRESIDENT, CONGESS AND STATE(S) are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary OPINION OF THE U.S.SUPREME COURT, the Constitution, and not such ordinary OPINION, must govern the case to which they both apply.
Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered, in CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE AND IN THE STATES, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the CONGRESS, THE WHITE HOUSE AND IN THE STATES must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the MAJORITY OPINION OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.
This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that a MAJORITY OPINION IN A FEDERAL COURT which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that if the FEDERAL COURTS shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the FEDERAL COURTS a practical and real omnipotence, with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions — a written constitution — would of itself be sufficient, in America, where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the Constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favor of its rejection.
The Constituition of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the Constitution.
Could it be the intention of those who gave this power to say that, in using it, the Constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the Constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it rises?
This is too extravagant to be maintained.
In some cases then, the Constitution must be looked into by the THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS AND THE STATES. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read or to obey?
There are many other parts of the Constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
From these, and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.
Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies in an especial manner to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support?
The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: "I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as —, according to the best of my abilities and understanding agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States."
Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the Constitution of the United States, if that Constitution forms no rule for his government? If it is closed upon him, and cannot be inspected by him?
If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or take this oath, becomes equally a crime.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall he made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. MODIFIED Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)
Thomas Jefferson: Liberty and Power
Several editors of newspapers had been found guilty of violating the Sedition Act of 1798 and sent to prison. When Jefferson became President, he pardoned and freed such of them as were still in prison. In correspondence with Abigail Adams in 1804, he justified his action this way:
You seem to think it devolved on the judges to decide on the validity of the Sedition Law. But nothing in the Constitution had given them a right to decide for the executive, more than to the executive to decide for them. Both magistrates are equally independent in the sphere of action assigned to them. The judges, believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because the power was placed in their hands by the Constitution. But the executive, believing the law to be unconstitutional, were bound to remit the execution of it, because that power has been confided to them by the Constitution. That instrument meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the [sole] right to decide what laws are constitutional ... would make the judiciary a despotic branch.10
President Jackson:
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve." The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
Justice Curtis's warning is as timely today as it was 135 years ago:
"[W]hen a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought tomean." Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 621 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
The Imperial Judiciary lives. It is instructive to compare this Nietzschean vision of us unelected, life tenured judges--leading a Volk who will be "tested by following," and whose very "belief in themselves" is mystically bound up in their "understanding" of a Court that "speak[s] before all others for their constitutional ideals"--with the somewhat more modest role envisioned for these lawyers by the Founders.
"The judiciary . . . has . . . no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither Force nor Will but merely judgment . . . ." The Federalist No. 78, pp. 393-394 (G. Wills ed. 1982).
Or, again, to compare this ecstasy of a Supreme Court in which there is, especially on controversial matters, no shadow of change or hint of alteration ("There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts," ante, at 24), with the more democratic views of a more humble man:
"[T]he 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 people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal." A. Lincoln, First Inaugural Address (Mar. 4, 1861), reprinted in Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 139 (1989).
"As noted before, the Supreme Court did not invent abortion. There might be plenty of abortion, perhaps authorized or permitted by state laws, even without Roe and Casey. Moreover, the Court is, arguably, not directly responsible for the wrong moral choices of individuals that the Court's decisions permit. Finally, the Court is not responsible - cannot be responsible, consistent with its constitutional role - for correcting all injustices, even grave ones. But the Court is responsible for the injustices that it inflicts on society that are not consistent with, but in fact betray, its constitutional responsibilities. To the extent that the Court has invalidated essentially all legal restriction of abortion, it has authorized private violence on a scale, and of a kind, that unavoidably evokes the memories of American slavery and of the Nazi Holocaust. And by cloaking that authorization in the forms of the law - in the name of the Supreme Law of the Land - the Court has taught the American people that such private violence is a right and, by clear implication, that it is alright. Go ahead. The Constitution is on your side. This is among your most cherished constitutional freedoms. Nobody ought to oppose you in your action. We have said so.
The decision in Casey, reaffirming Roe and itself reaffirmed and extended in Carhart, in my view exposes the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, as a lawless, rogue institution capable of the most monstrous of injustices in the name of law, with a smugness and arrogance worthy of the worst totalitarian dictatorships of all time. The Court, as it stands today, has, with its abortion decisions, forfeited its legal and moral legitimacy as an institution. It has forfeited its claimed authority to speak for the Constitution. It has forfeited its entitlement to have its decisions respected, and followed, by the other branches of government, by the states, and by the People. The enthusiasm of liberal intelligentsia for the Court's abortion decisions, the sycophancy of the law professorate, of the legal profession, and of our elected officials, and the docility of the American people with respect to our lawless, authoritarian Court rivals the pliancy of the most cowardly, servile peoples toward ruinous, brutal, anti-democratic regimes throughout world history. We suffer people to commit despicable acts of private violence and we welcome - some of us revere - a regime that destroys popular government for the sake of perverted, Orwellian notions of "liberty." After a twentieth century that saw some of the worst barbarisms and atrocities ever committed by humankind, at a time when humankind supposedly had progressed to more enlightened states, we still have not learned. The lesson of the Holocaust - "Never Forget" - is lost. We fail to recognize the amazing capacity of human beings to commit unthinkable, barbaric evil, and of others to tolerate it. We remember and are aghast at the atrocities of others, committed in the past, or in distant lands today. But we do not even recognize the similar atrocities that we ourselves commit, and tolerate, today."Michael Stokes Paulsen, The Worst Constitutional Decision of All Time, 78 Notre Dame L. Rev. 995, 1003-1007 (2003).
"In his speech to the Federalist Society, Scalia offered a detailed description of his approach to constitutional interpretation. In his view, Supreme Court justices overstep not only their authority but also their expertise when they try to answer some of society's most divisive moral questions in legal cases such as abortion. He says moral issues should be resolved by elected political leaders, not unelected judges."
"Other than offering the anecdote of the fundraising letter, Scalia did not mention the chief-justice issue during his lecture. Instead, he focused on what he sees as the problem of judges becoming involved in issues that he believes have no place in a court of law."
"He offered examples from the US Supreme Court - abortion, gay rights, the death penalty, gender equality at military schools, and assisted suicide."
"Under a regime of static law, it was not difficult to decide whether under the American Constitution there was a right to abortion or to homosexual conduct or to assisted suicide," he said. "When the Constitution was decided, all those acts were criminal throughout the United States and remained so for several centuries. There was no credible argument that the Constitution made those laws invalid."
"Of course, society remained free to decriminalize those acts [through legislation], as many states have," he added. "But under a static Constitution, judges could not do so." One justice's vision of role of the courts,
bump
>>For now, however, the Court is likely to remain an institution that above all reserves its right to have the final word, no matter which political party dominates the White House or Congress.<<
Isn't Congress the body that determines what will be lawful and what won't?
Shhh! Don't bust their bubble. I don't see how giving more power to the Feds could be construed as being conservative.
Why Care What The Constitution Says?
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1115106/posts?page=47
WHY CARE WHAT
THE CONSTITUTION SAYS?
by Randy Barnett
"The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed." —JOHN MARSHALL (1803)
Had judges done their job, this book would not need to be written. Since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have eliminated clause after clause that interfered with the exercise of government power.
This started early with the Necessary and Proper Clause, continued through Reconstruction with the destruction of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and culminated in the post-New Deal Court that gutted the Commerce Clause and the scheme of enumerated powers affirmed in the Tenth Amendment, while greatly expanding the unwritten "police power" of the states.
All along, with sporadic exceptions, judges have ignored the Ninth Amendment. As a result of judicial decisions, these provisions of the Constitution are now largely gone and, in their absence, the enacted Constitution has been lost and even forgotten. ------
The Congress, The People,The Congress,The People, The Congress,The People,The Congress,The People,The Congress, The People,The Congress,The People,The Congress,The People
They all seem to forget that they are PUBLIC SERVANTS and have their jobs because they serve at the Pleasure of the PEOPLE. They seem to think they RULE the People! Time to WAKE THEM UP!! Shake the TREE!!
One critical case that will be indication of the Supreme Court's direction is the review of the Connecticut Supreme Court case involving the city of New London and the city's attempt to seize private property (Kelo and Dery)for private party needs (Pfizer).
The case is supposed to be heard in February and will show what the court thinks of private property rights under the concept of eminent domain. I saw a notice on a website the other day that the Bush administration was leaning in favor of the State of Connecticut which whould be a real blow to our right to own and lawfully enjoy our property.
Should the Bush administration have an impact for the state in this case, I will be one pissed off conservative Republican.
Lamudbug
An old fart who is a Goldwater Republican...
Good post, Ed. Marbury v Madison was wrong, and it's all been downhill from there! Roe v Wade is just one huge abomination among many. If Bush nominates ONLY decent conservatives, and is followed by another president (2008-2012) who does the same, we have a fair chance of turning things around. Otherwise, I would not be too optimistic.
B4Ranch wrote:
Isn't Congress the body that determines what will be lawful and what won't?
If Bush nominates ONLY decent conservatives, and is followed by another president (2008-2012) who does the same, we have a fair chance of turning things around. Otherwise, I would not be too optimistic.
Congress can remove appelate jurisdiction of the USSC and jurisdiction of lower federal courts We the People Act(HR 3893 IH) and leave these issues with the states.
Article III, Section 2 - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED In the 107th Congress (2001-2002), Congress used the authority of Article III, Section 2, clause 2 on 12 occasions to limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
You always have interesting posts, but I'm going to have to read this one tomorrow.
When are The People going to do something about Open Bordersd and Illegal Aliens in America?
Congress hasn't done anything yet.
So his analysis is that to favor the state over the individual is a CONSERVATIVE position??? Maybe the guy with the four way political quiz is right (liberal vs. conservative; libertarian vs. authoritarian).
That's right, and the President CLAIMS to have the political capitol to spend. On this issue, The Borders and Immigration, it is time to start getting the E-mail addresses, phone numbers and addresses to your Reps in Congress and start to BEAT DOWN the door!!
If we must go to Capitol Hill and BEAT DOWN THE DOOR!!! Let them know they work for the PEOPLE and Not the President!!!!
Just who mentioned O'Connor as a possible Rehnquist replacement? Time for that old hag to retire...
I'll leave the party if she gets elevated to Chief Justice, I swear...
Just who mentioned O'Connor as a possible Rehnquist replacement? Time for that old hag to retire...
I'll leave the party if she gets elevated to Chief Justice, I swear...
She doesn't show up in the F.R. Poll. She would be Chieftess Justice, or just plain injustice?
She could be Chief literary Justice:
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. [505 U.S. 852]
This literary prose allows corporations to be persons, but not unborn humans.
Chief Hag might do.
"Just who mentioned O'Connor as a possible Rehnquist replacement? Time for that old hag to retire...
I'll leave the party if she gets elevated to Chief Justice, I swear..."
O'Conner is the worst justice on the Supreme Court!!
At least Breyer and Ginsburg were appointed to be liberal, but O'Conner was appointed by a REPUBLICAN and she's liberal.
She should be impeached, the traitor.
And Souter, too.
Read later, thanks.
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.