Rehnquist: We are Olympus ye heathen rabble.
Posted on 03/03/2005 5:34:47 AM PST by totherightofu
Marbury v. Madison (1803): This case established judicial review. William Marbury was a politician, and James Madison was the Secretary of State under President Thomas Jefferson. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled an act of Congress was unconstitutional. The court called this power "judicial review." It was the first time the Supreme Court had made such a determination. Marbury v. Madison became one of the most important cases in history because it gave the Supreme Court power to interpret the laws, and determine whether they were constitutional. It is interesting the Supreme Court gave itself this power!
Isn't Chertoff part of the . . . uhhh . . . globalist cabal?
I agree with this in principle, but in this particular case, what is to be done with a court that refuses to be bound by the Constitution? If a court reaches beyond the bounds of their authority, which is the contention here, is there no recourse for the citizens?
Your point is well taken, but it is a matter of degree. We are well past merely momentarily unpopular decisions. What we have instead is a court which is essentially lawless, and which recognizes no restraint on its own power. They truly believe, and manifest in their actions, that they can do anything they want. Like the Red Queen, words have no meaning but those that they assign. In particular, they are entirely unconstrained by the text or history of the constitution, by any previous interpretative norms, by their oath of office, by their own precedents, by logic, facts, or anything other than the requirement to get 5 votes. They are like a bunch of teenagers in an incoherent fog of bong hits issuing pronunciamentos on such vaporous nonsense as how to realize the inherent human potential for dignity and personhood, as understood by evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society which emanate from inscrutable penumbras. The court-approved methods for doing so are cornholing, abortion, virtual child pornograpy, and nekkid dancing. Court-forbidden methods include prayer in school and many methods of criticizing candidates for federal office. It is a fact that virtual child pornography enjoys greater first amendment protection under this court's decisions than does core political speech about a candidate's qualifications for office.
But there are and must be limits on the power of the court in the text of the constitution, in the plain meaning of words, in the truth of facts and logic. The branches of government were intended to contend for power, and it is high time that the other two branches respond to the outrageous, lawless and unconstitutional conduct of this court.
Clearly we have a rogue court on our hands.
=======
This is SADLY VERY TRUE -- a court making decisions so that we "FIT THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY" is a court operating WAY OUTSIDE OF ITS CHARTER, certainly not in the interest of the U.S. or ITS LAWS. The job of this court is TO INTERPRET U.S. LAW, NOT TO WRITE LAW, BASED ON INTERNATIONALISM.
The citizens of this country HAVE A HUGE PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH HERE....
Thomas Jefferson wanted a 19 year term limit. (19 years being considered a generation).
you know who's good on this issue, even tho' he's not a lawyer and says so, is ernie brown on "america at night" on radios.
p.s. i'm not a lawyer, either! but i am tired of the democrats trying their end-runs around the people of this country by means of their judges.
The supremes should be glad they are not taken care of in an "international" manner like those two judges in Iraq were the other day.
I do not want to be governed or judged by "internationl" standards.
you reckon tofu is kosher?
Maybe.
Dunno.
Something doesn't feel right here but I dunno what it is.
Eyes on, hold fire for IFF then.
Thier funding also comes from the Congress! Slash their budget!
Holding pattern, waiting for LANTIRN sweep and go/ no go.
I apologize for the insensitive nature of what I am about to write.
I'd like an arm band, or a ribbon in the spirit of Lance Armstrong or Breast Cancer research.
Let's color them orange and purple and make a pledge.
I will do everything I can to support Cancer research.
I will make significant donations to help find a cure.
But I will wait until CJ Renquist's thyroid cancer impeaches him from the court.
Has any of the pool of possible presidential contenders weighed in on the USSC's lawlessness? Do we have any leadership in Congress? Do we have any state leaders who are up in arms about state laws being overturned willy-nilly on the basis of laws of more civilized nations? The silence from US political leaders is deafening. DEAFENING!
You are correct, however, keep in mind that lawyers rule both houses of Congress, and they will protect their bar brothers. Period.
The solution to this is to get rid of Spector as Judiciary Chairman.
True. But that's why they think they're immune now, Because they have failed in the past. Doesn't mean the House can't take they're shining aura down a peg or two. I want the House to keep limiting their jurisdiction. That passed last congress but the Senate never took it up. It's time now.
We need you legal eagles to explain this alledged "impossibility to impeach" Supreme Court judges.
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.