Posted on 08/08/2005 5:45:04 PM PDT by COEXERJ145
I don't know anybody here that is "anti SCOTUS". Most of us have a deep respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. I know lots of very smart people who have had it with extra constitutional holdings, the idiotic Roe decision, the citing of foreign mores as precedent in cases such as Lawrence, the de facto granting of special rights in cases like Romer and the taking of private property to give to other private citizens with deeper pockets.
In short, our argument isn't with the SCOTUS, it's with those sitting on it who ignore the US Constitution.
Nice post, although we disagree on some judicial matters. But thanks for reminding me about Romer. It is as worthy a candidate as Roe to be overturned, maybe more so. The decision was a mess. It is clearly animated by policy bias. I posted about it elsewhere. Criticising the Robes when we think they get it wrong, is the public square in action. The trick is to it intelligently, and effectively.
I understand that is what we are in the process of doing. We are sending them back to their own countries and it's driving the libs absolutely NUTS!
Today I get a letter from my Congressman who tells me he read my stuff and wanted to let me know where he stood. He then spends about 5 paragraphs giving me the rundown on his recent votes in Congress that oppose SCOTUS decision in Kelo.
One made me laugh. Evidently they had a vote to reduce SCOTUS' budget by the amount of money that the property is worth in New London that has been subject to Eminent Domain. :-}
I got a kick out of that one.
So many politicians think we are brain dead. Maybe they are brain dead, maybe hacks. Maybe it is the Terri syndrome or something.
Not a chance the Court will grant cert. First, the appeals court decision was correct. Second, there's no circuit split. Third, the primary question in the cert petition wasn't even addressed in the circuit court. And fourth, Roberts would have to recuse himself risking a 4-4 split.
I don't see why Roberts would have to recuse himself. But I am not sure.
Our second mistake is in detaining terrorists on a land-based prison. They should be detained on prison-ship -- makes it easier to have them "walk the plank."
ya know thats not a bad idea! Think of all the terrorists who would 'jump' to their deaths hehehe
No he's not. It's been done before, and nothing came of it.
Andrew Jackson.
and can add amendments to the constitution
Congress can not do that. Only the states vote for ratification.
You can call it "courage", but Congress is the branch that is supposed to represent "the will of the people",
That's a joke, right?
"If this is true, and congress has the power to override them (and they do), then why have they not?"
I'm beginning to think that it's because both parties torpedo candidates unless they have enough blackmail material on them to control them.
I think that scenario is a bit far-fetched, but either way, it is proper for the courts to make sure that POW camps don't cross the line into being general prisoner camps for anyone the President doesn't like. There may be some legitimate dispute as to where to draw that line, but not over the fact that it's being drawn.
You're making a circular argument.
Prisoners taken on the battlefield in foreign wars have never been US "judicial matters" nor should they ever be. But don't take my word for it.
From Ex Parte Quirin:
You said earlier in this thread (#7) that "settled law" should mean nothing to the Right, that we should only look to the Constitution itself. Quoting an FDR-era SCOTUS ruling is hardly the same as quoting the Constitution.
That was the genius of the Founding Fathers. They wanted the three branches of government in constant concflict, to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful.
Wouldn't that one be "underreach"?
"Congress can not do that. Only the states vote for ratification."
Well we are both half right. Prior to ratification the bill needs to be approved by both houses by a 2/3 majority. The second method, the "Constitutional Convention" has never been used.
"In short, our argument isn't with the SCOTUS, it's with those sitting on it who ignore the US Constitution."
Just trying to save some typing.
"That's a joke, right?"
Not at all, that is what they are supposed to represent. They are the peoples elected voice. Whos will are you suggesting they are supposed to represent.
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.