FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Congress also has the constitutional power to impeach, convict and remove from office any judge.
To my mind, any judge who injects his own policy preferences into his decisions has committed the greatest “high crime and misdemeanor” possible against his office and the American people.
Who wrote the majority decision. It sounds like Justice Thomas clear logic or a Scalia scolding.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Congress abdicated its duty when a majority of the members decided that getting re-elected was more important to them than defending the Constitution and representing We the People. And, then they spent the next 100 years rigging the system to protect incumbents at all costs.
We are seeing that as the driving force behind all legislation in both parties. But it’s particularly deceitful of Republicans. Democrats were the descendants of the Royalists and have been trying to restore their aristocratic right to be parasites on We the People all along.
What a silly article. This debate has been going on since 1803 with Madison v Marbury and the concept of Judicial review. A basic knowledge of US history would help the writer
I trust the Establishment clause would prevent Congress from enacting any laws that would infringe on practicing the Satanic Black Mass for public perusal.
Your link is to a bill which would allow Congress to overrule judicial decisions. This is a bad idea on many levels.
Much better to limit appellate jurisdiction as the founders intended. A law which said, “The Supreme Court may not review on appeal any State law respecting an establishment of religion, nor any State law restricting or forbidding abortions” would be clear and perfectly constitutional.
Sad but true, the USG uses SCOTUS as a court to decide internal disputes. The founders did not forcee this eventiality.
I remember, years ago, seeing a TV ad by a religious group that said “freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion”.
In fact, it means exactly that, if by “freedom from religion” you mean that you cannot be forced to have a religion. Religious freedom doesn’t only mean that you have the right to choose your religion, but also that you have the right to not choose any religion at all.
And you have the right to not be forced to participate in any religious expression.
What you do not have is the right to never have to see other people exercising their religions. There are, after all, two parts to the religious liberty clause - establishment and exercise.
“Freedom from religion” does not mean you have the right to not be exposed to other people praying.
The author is missing the brazen lawlessness that has infected and rotted out the very foundation of our Republic. What will the lawless do? All branches of Fedzilla have usurped power to affirm or deny our *unalienable* rights. For example, DOMA didn't restore order and sanity, it gave the government an excuse to redefine natural law (marriage) into something it is not. Strike down self-evident truths, and then recreate sicko definitions of them.
If we continue on the present trajectory, the Obamanation will simply stop tolerating the existence of We the People. Beast.gov will define "We the People" as a terrorist group. On wait...
***A few examples include the court’s infamous Dred Scott slavery decision,***
All people see in this is the SLAVERY issue! They fail to note that the SCOTUS also listed the rights blacks would have if they were granted citizenship.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased,
to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;
and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs,
and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.
I agree that initially, the impact of this ruling was not comprehended. The USSC tossed decades of lawsuits regarding “Church vs. State” into the trash. Gone now is that argument which allowed suits to be filed against crosses honoring veterans, or religious displays on city or county property. The angst that the left is going to be experiencing now is going to fun to watch.
That suggest anything?