Replies

Many folks may not remember that strange incident in Washington DC a couple of years ago, in which David Souter was assaulted and robbed while jogging in a park -- by someone who apparently had no idea who he was and was just out to rob the first person who came along.

If the U.S. Supreme Court had anywhere near the "power" that is ascribed to them by conservative legal experts like Mark Levin and Ann Coulter, that limp-wristed mediocrity wouldn't be out running around in Rock Creek Park without a security detail.

Congress has any number of avenues through which to overturn Supreme Court rulings, and the fact that it has not done (or even broached the subject of possibly doing so) is (to me) compelling evidence that they don't see the Supreme Court as an out-of-control institution hell-bent on diminishing the authority of the legislative and executive branches of government. It's hard to make the case that one branch of government is usurping power from another when the branch whose power is supposedly being usurped isn't even voicing a mild protest about it.

So let's wrap this up with a summary that appears to flow well from a logical standpoint.

1. Congress has any number of perfectly legitimate means at its disposal to deal with the assumption of extra-constitutional powers on the part of the judicial branch of the Federal government.

2. Congress has not acted on even a single one of these means to deal with the assumption of extra-constitutional powers on the part of the judicial branch of the Federal government.

3. Therefore, we can conclude that Congress has no interest in dealing with this assumption of extra-constitutional powers on the part of the judicial branch of the Federal government.

As far as the executive branch is concerned, I would make a compelling case that much of this administration's actions in the conduct of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq has been specifically aimed at eliminating the Federal judiciary as a potential obstacle. The use of civilian contractors for military operations overseas, the use of off-shore detention/processing facilities for enemy prisoners, etc. are pretty much an admission on the part of the executive branch of the U.S. government that the U.S. judiciary can't be trusted to act in the best interests of the country.

Again you write about Congress and the Executive but not the people and I don't even see the relevance of Souter's or any SC justice's obscurity. Are you trying to say that the people can't or don't control the judiciary because they don't know it exists or because they don't know who the judges are? Or is your point that the judiciary doesn't need to be controlled because it doesn't have any real influence? Neither point, nor any other I can connect with your post, addresses effective popular control of the judiciary - in fact both argue against it.

You don't strike me as a moron and yet are unable to follow along. You're not even supporting your own off topic argument. Why has the administration gone to such great lengths to avoid judicial scrutiny in the WOT if they could simply ignore any inconvenient court decisions? In fact, how has it helped them? Haven't the courts taken up these cases anyway? Haven't detainees gotten their claims before the court? Aren't military tribunals also before the court? I will bet that these purported secret prisons will be the subject of court scrutiny before too long. Further, isn't it the case that the administration has complied with the court's rulings against them? Don't you agree they will comply with future ones?

I guess it is possible that you're being just too subtle for me. In clear and simple language, tell me what specific, *effective* constitutional means the people have to control the courts.