Posted on 12/16/2011 9:57:40 PM PST by sheikdetailfeather
Amen....it’s making me like Newt even more!! I am starting to despiuse Ann .Coulter! AND BoR
Very well stated, as usual.
“We have lots more Ds that Rs in our state”
All of those Ds have really done a bang up job with your state, haven’t they. Before too long, there won’t be enough people (citizens) left there to make any difference anyway. California will soon be a new state in the northern part of Mexico.
If you think that balancing the federal budget for the last time in our history is progressive, I want some more of it.
Has Congress ever limited what the courts can address?
Later
“Has Congress ever limited what the courts can address?”
The last one I recall was done by Daschle in South Dakota. A big wildfire swept through the national forest. Daschle passed legislation to go in and clean it up. He added the kicker that no court could review the legislation, so the hippy eco-fascists couldn’t stop the clean up.
>> I would love to see a debate between Mark and Rush. Getting into details Mark would crush Rush. >>
Hmm, interesting post. Not sure what it has to do with this subject or why you brought it up.
Not sure they ever disagree on enough to have a meaningful debate. Not sure “details” win debates over big picture arguments.>>>>
Rush covers the top of a subject and expects the listerner to understand where he is going. Mark takes his audience down into the depth of a subject matter. IMHO Mark’s audience is much more educated in politics than ‘El Rushbo’. Generally speaking. I listen to both.
And with respects to the trashing of Newt by many GOP estabishment types, Mark and Rush are of like mind. So out of curiosity, where were you going with this?
Thank you, that’s the first case that I’ve heard of. One would think that the “no judicial review” strategy would be used much more often.
I don’t think it has, but the power is in the Constitution.
Article 3, Section 2 “with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Congress could reserved for itself certain classes of judicial decisions, or could appoint a special court. That would make the US a bit more like the old England system with different courts for different purposes, and each with its own appeals process and precedents.
Some think that the problem is the solution to another problem: Federal court review of decisions made by state courts regarding state laws. Congress could enact an exception to prevent that, or could create a separate body to review state court decisions.
Though it would be possible, I don’t see how that would solve the fundamental underlying problem. The new body would have the same problems of activist judges or “judges making decisions with which I don’t agree”.
In the regulations for the courts, congress could also enact ‘original intent’ or ‘original meaning’ and even codify what that original intent was in some finite cases. Where a court made an ‘incorrect’ decision, the regulations could be modified to add new guidance that would correct the error.
All that becomes possible with a legislative majority (controlling the rules of House and Senate) and the presidency. Without that legislative majority, it is mere theory.
And the same detailed guidance that would correct the court under legislative control by honest, moral people would also be subject to abuse by immoral, dishonest people. Imagine a regulation or legislatively provided precedent that the 2nd Amendment only described a right of people to apply to join the US military. Certainly not what I would agree to, but if good legislative regulations were binding on the courts, then bad legislative regulations would also be binding, to our peril.
I am so sorry, I don’t see Ann as being part of the Establishment circle. I agree with her on all but evolution and Christianity.
I would also like to see budget balancing, if done by spending cuts to unconstitutional government activities, such as HUD, HHS, Education, EPA, Energy. What we don’t need is the private sector shrinking further.
But WTH do you want them to debate and why would you think they would disagree?
Mark Levin is right because he has one thing that BO and Coulter lack, common sense. Both of these big-mouths have been sitting high-up on their commentary pedestal for so long believing they have a superior intelligent elitism, that they greatly underestimate the common sense intelligence of the American voter.
I usually toss any artifacts from old girlfriends.
Helps me move on.... LOL
.... Interesting. I guess she intends to remain single
.... Most men could not tolerate the mouth. ....
Nope.
Most men couldn’t keep up with her mind.
That and the fact Miss Coulter is as generous, as gracious and as humble a good lady (advisedly) as one might ever wish to know.
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.