Posted on 02/05/2017 10:04:05 AM PST by VitacoreVision
Its no surprise the Democrats plan to fight against the nomination of President Trumps Supreme Court pick, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals judge Neil Gorsuch. There are no confirmation battles like Supreme Court confirmation battles because, as we always hear, such a decision can shape the country for a generation.
This doesnt sound like the role envisioned by the founders. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, No. 78, the judiciary is (theoretically) the least dangerous branch of government because it has no influence over either the sword or the purse. So how have the courts been afforded so much power?
Afforded is the word. In reality, the judiciary has become the most dangerous branch due to ignorance and congressional abdication of responsibility.
Conservatives often complain that the courts thwart the peoples will, act unconstitutionally and impose their own biases via judicial fiat. A good example is the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision dictating that states must recognize faux (same-sex) marriage. What most dont know is that Congress could long before have prevented the courts from weighing in.
Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of federal courts below the Supreme Court and the appellate jurisdiction of the latter. In other words, Congress could simply have prevented federal courts below the SCOTUS from ruling on marriage (and other issues) to begin with and the SCOTUS from reviewing lower-court decisions on those issues. This would, essentially, have left marriage where it belongs: in the states.
Why was this not done?
Cowardice.
Congress wouldve had to take a firm stand on a contentious issue and perhaps suffer electoral consequences. Its easier for politicians to just puff up their chests, complain of judicial overreach, then throw up their hands and say The courts have ruled theres nothing we can do. Few today understand the Constitution, so who will argue?
Congress also has the power under Article III to eliminate any and every federal court except the SCOTUS. For example, it could have sent the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit known for insane rulings and as the nations most reversed court packing long ago. It certainly would make judges mind their ps and qs, too, if they knew acting unconstitutionally could mean their jobs.
Again, though, this would require Congress to take a stand. Besides, if it actually did so and drained the judicial swamp, what could Congress blame for divisive political outcomes? The transgressing courts would be gone and the remaining ones chastened, and judges would more often leave issues (e.g., abortion, marriage) in the legislatures hands, putting politicians on the hot seat. Cant have that. Federal judges dont have to be reelected congressmen do.
Yet this is why courts are going rogue. How can there be a balance of power in our system, as the founders intended, if one branch refuses to exercise its power?
The kicker is that accepting the courts current role is not only misguided, but, according to Thomas Jefferson, makes our Constitution a felo de se a suicide pact.
Jefferson was warning of judicial supremacy, the idea that courts have the power to determine what law means and thus constrain not only their own branch, but the other two as well. Why did this bother Jefferson?
The legislatures power to create law and the executive branchs power to enforce it are granted by the Constitution. But what of judicial supremacy?
It is nowhere to be found in the Constitution.
Rather, this power was declared by the courts themselves, most notably in the Marbury v. Madison decision in 1803. Talk about circular reasoning: The SCOTUS has trump card power....
Because the SCOTUS says so.
The result? The Supreme Court was only meant to be supreme among courts. Instead, in a government supposedly of, by and for the people, five lawyers can determine what law means for 320 million Americans.
With Trump poised to transform the SCOTUS, conservatives may say that now isnt the time to question its power. But Republican judicial nominees have often disappointed. Moreover, draining the swamp is fine, but if we want the right kind of governmental revolution, perhaps we should start by listening to the revolutionaries who created our government.
>
They intentionally write laws that are vague, that they think are unConstitutional, that include words like reasonable which mean reasonable to the swing vote on the court.
>
Used to be, we had a ‘out’ as well: Void for vagueness.
Course, that too falls into the ‘falls back to Congress’, which has shown is incapable of doing its job a/o enforcing its power\authority
The law schools produce these activist judges. A giant in the teaching and textbook authorship part of the profession said that now, judges decide the result they want in a case and skew words to get there.
The only remedy is lawyers trained in true legal philosophy, reasoning and ethics.
The law schools produce these activist judges. A giant in the teaching and textbook authorship part of the profession said that now, judges decide the result they want in a case and skew words to get there.
The only remedy is lawyers trained in true legal philosophy, reasoning and ethics.
* * *
I wouldn’t think there would be anything preventing that. But I think the Executive needs a dedicated task force maybe within the justice department that has a sole mission to review judges that overstep their bounds and build the case.
Blackmail them. They’re no angels.
Congress has the authority to "Constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court" (Art I, Sect 8, Para 9).
It could dissolve the 9th Circuit, and then reconstitute it as any number of new Circuits.
The President can then nominate new judges, after they've been fully vetted, to fill these open spots.
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.