Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mrobison
Where did this whole concept of "judicial independence" come from? My basic reading of the constitution, and civics that you learn in 1st grade, is that there are three branches of the government, each with checks and balances on each other. The checks and balances on the Supreme Court are that 1. The President appoints them. 2. Congress can impeach them. 3. Constitutional amendments can be passed overruling them.

The supreme court, however, seems to think that it is somehow above checks and balances, and that any talk that they might have made a bad decision is somehow threatening the structure of the republic. BS. If they make up the law, congress can impeach them.

3 posted on 08/09/2005 9:06:41 PM PDT by Rodney King (No, we can't all just get along.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Rodney King

I'm wondering if we can't just get a 2-for-1 deal and send Breyer packing with O'Connor...


5 posted on 08/09/2005 9:08:24 PM PDT by mrobison (We are the music makers and we are the dreamers of dreams.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Rodney King; mrobison; trubluolyguy

Judicial Independence has become code for, or a euphemism for Judicial Supremacy.

And you're right that this is an arrogant attitude held by Breyer. He's basically saying that the Courts' reckless and outrageous usurpation of power from the people and the states must be accepted w/o question or we are guilty of questioning the independence of the Courts. Who are we to dare question the invention out of thin air new rights to abortion and gay marriage? Who are we to dare disagree that the First Amendment stricture against Congress establishing a national religion also forbids the placing of nativity scenes on public grounds? Who are we to insist on deciding for ourselves those issues that the Framers of the Constitution clearly didn't see fit to elevate above the normal democratic process? Who are we to insist on self governance?

This is a very convenient attitude for people like Breyer, who shares part of the blame for turning the Sup Court into a political body, and for those who turn to the Courts to have imposed what they can't implement through the proper channels.


15 posted on 08/09/2005 9:18:26 PM PDT by Aetius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: Rodney King

You forgot one very important check on the Supreme Court. According to Article 3, Section 2, 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." Therefore, Congress can remove entire classes of cases from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.


33 posted on 08/09/2005 10:22:47 PM PDT by MarcusTulliusCicero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson