Posted on 09/29/2010 1:51:58 PM PDT by paltz
No way!
No how!
Why not just pack the court?
He’s nailing it....Lets all buy the book and make it a best seller...If you have the money buy extra copy for your local high school.
Leahy is a nincompoop!
I went to buy one yesterday. Neither Walmart nor bookstore had it.
Might have to order online.
Hmmm. My first reaction is, this is unconstitutional. The President appoints justices to the Supreme Court and the Senate approves them. Sen. Leahy’s proposal would require a Constitutional amendment. Good luck with that!
Aside from that, I think this puts too much power with the Supreme Court. The same branch of government selects its own members—not a good thing.
The SCOTUS gets some 3000 cases of year, of which it can only hear a very few, with the vast majority being stuck with whatever their lower court ruling had been, no matter their merits.
This means that a single “bad” circuit court, like the 9th, is assured that though any decision of theirs that makes it to the SCOTUS will be overturned, the vast majority of their bad decisions will be retained.
But a proposed way around this problem is to create a “Second Court of the United States”. 50 or 100 judges, *appointed by the States*, who will review the rest of those 3000 cases.
This would profoundly help the balance of powers between the federal government, the States, and the people, because though the 14th Amendment allows the federal government to protect the people from abusive States, there needs to be a way for the States to protect their citizens from an abusive federal government.
The way this Second Court of the United States would work is because most of the court cases being appealed are not really a federal prerogative, but are arguments within State law. Federal judges deciding to hear cases they should have never heard.
An excellent example is the infamous “Bong Hits For Jesus” case, that has made it to the Supreme Court *twice*, though it is just a petty local matter. It is one of the perpetual number of cases that the federal judiciary latch on to from public schools, and hear over and over again, and never definitively resolving.
In this case, the Second Court of the United States would act to rebuke these federal judges, based on the legal opinion of the States that this is *not* a federal matter, but a State matter. So in the vast majority of cases, they would be taken out of the hands of federal judges and be be returned to the States.
Thus, the number of cases to go to the Supreme Court would be culled to perhaps 100-300, which would clearly have the need for a constitutional resolution.
Huck,
Reading through Article III makes me wonder...
where does the concept of “serves for life” come from?
Article III is pretty vague about how the court should be established.
-
Article III-Section 1
“The judicial power of the United States,
shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
and in such inferior courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts,
shall hold their offices during good behavior...”
-
In my world, there would be 50 justices,
one appointed by the governor of each state,
and the Governor would have full recall privilege.
*facepalm*
I so hate this man.
For reference, everyone.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)
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.
The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Oh, he's brain dead too.
Not exactly. She tried to stay on, and she never gave up her office in the SCOUS building. She's still there, as far as I know. Supposedly she left to take care of her husband, but she soon tired of that and came back. Then he died.
Would not be a problem if the last 2 justices had not been nominated & confirmed.
There is a reason for a 3 part government.
NObama & this Congress is tearing that down.
...because the senile old FL judges beyond the mandatory retirement age of state court judges are working out so well in FL’s rocket docket.
(for those in rio linda, retired judges are screwing up matters worse than can be imagined)
Go look at how they did it under the Articles of Confederation. Not that different from what you suggest.
Moron.
Next will be the FDR tactic of packing the court. Nothing is beyond the Democratic Party, as the Al Franken election should have taught us.
In a word:
NO!
Are you talking about this? .. from Article IX?
-
“Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any state in controversy with another shall present a petition to congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other state in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, congress shall name three persons out of each of the united states, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as congress shall direct, shall in the presence of congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each state, and the secretary of congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgment or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to congress, and lodged among the acts of congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the state, where the cause shall be tried, “well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgment, without favour, affection or hope of reward:” provided also, that no state shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the united states.”
-
It looks like there was no actual “sitting” court,
but that judges would be appointed case-by-case as needed?
Am I misreading this?
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.