HAS THE SUPREME COURT LOST ITS WAY?

House of Representatives ^ | June 13, 2005 | United States Representative for Texas’ 2nd Congressional District, Judge Ted Poe

[Constitution Restoration Act]

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, David Souter, and Sandra Day O'Connor are suffering from the Black Robe disease, an incapacitating, invasive infection imported from Europe. There is a cure to the Black Robe disease, however.

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/fitschen.html

[Constitution Restoration Act]

"black robe disease" ping

[King Prout]

BUMP!

[King Prout]

must-read PING

[RedBeaconNY]

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/academics/lawreview/fitschen.html

[trek]

How dare this mere representative of the people challenge our philosopher kings so arrogantly. Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves right now.

[Aetius]

Yes, of course the Sup Court has lost its way, but it happened 50 yrs ago. Today it is merely continuing that shameful tradition.

[atomicpossum]

My only litmus test for John Roberts would be "Is it or is it not a crock to consider foreign law when deciding the laws of the United States?"

A wrong answer there, the boy can go home.

[FreedomCalls]

Federal prosecutors, using common sense, prosecuted him under a U.S. statute which says ex-convicts for weapons violations may not possess guns.

This statute, passed by this Congress prohibits, ``Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding a year to possess any firearm.'' Notice the statute says any court, it does not say U.S. court or state court, but any court.

Nevertheless, when this case went on appeal, the justices of the Supreme Court trumped the law, a law that is on our books, on America's books. They concluded that Congress ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not foreign application.

Here's where I had to bail out. Congress clearly intended this law to have application to cases where the victim was convicted by a court whose standing is recognized by the United States government. They didn't intend it to apply to convictions by my daughter playing Barbie Court with her Attorney Barbie doll. But under a strict reading that's exactly the position that the author, Poe, is intending that we must support. Even if you argue that that was indeed Congress's intent, then the Supreme Court is rightfully correct in striking a conviction made under that interpretation.

[PatrickHenry]

Yup. Good piece.

[CindyDawg]

No. You have to have something before you can lose it.

[Iscool]

This fella had a good rant but unfortunately he stopped way short of any solution, especially the obvious one...

[bayourod]

Welcome to FR. Bammel?

[hermgem]

Let them use foreign, Chinese, law when it comes to the death penalty.
Once judgment is made, the Court ruling will be honored within days.
No such thing as 20 years or more to follow the court's directive.
And, by the way, have yet to hear Euro protests or taking actions such as economic sanctions.

[NicknamedBob]

"(Winning elections is the only thing Those who glorify losing are unclear on the concept of democrac)"

Democrac? Is this some new form of stupor inducing designer drug?

[Brilliant]

Seems pretty obvious that the Supreme Court has abused its power.

[TheForceOfOne]

Beware of Liberals in black robes making legal decisions for an entire nation.

Parents, don't let liberals drive the nation while drunk on left-wing political activism, innocent people are getting hurt everyday.

Do your part, don't let liberals drive drunk.

[Lunkhead_01]

Yes, Representative Poe gave a great speech on the floor of the House of Representatives but he did not go far enough. If he really believes in the Constitution, he should have gone farther than simply stating all judges are appointed as long as their behavior is good. If the behavior of any judge is deemed by any member of the House of Representatives to not meet the standards of good behavior that member of the House of Representatives should draft articles of impeachment and seek to have house vote on those articles. If the House passes such Articles of Impeachment, the Senate must try the judges. (See Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.") If the Senate convicts those justices, they would be removed from the Court. (See Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 of the U.S. Constitution: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.") While it may be difficult to get the RATS to vote to remove any of four justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, voting against removing the four twits who cite foreign public opinion could well cost those Senators their jobs. Too bad Representative Poe did not file Articles of Impeachment.

[zip]

Long read but worth every minute.

[bayourod]

Congressman Poe is probably one of the finest men to ever go to Congress. He is a solid lifetime conservative Christian/family man and was the most highly respected judge in Houston for many years.

He is right about applying foreign law, except he has forgotten that the Supreme Court has always applied British common law. It was the basis of our laws before codification began. The Magna Carta was as revered by the early justices as highly as the Bill of Right.