Posted on 09/26/2020 11:21:24 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Rioting in New York, threats of court-packing, promises of arson at the thought of Trump replacing its demi-god with a justice who actually believes in the Constitution. The left is rabid.
Even character assassination (a la the Bret Kavanaugh inquisition) is no longer enough. When will the hostage-taking start?
The President has Article II power to nominate “judges of the Supreme Court.” Donald Trump’s power doesn’t extend to the next election, but to the next inauguration -- still four months away.
The composition of the United States Supreme Court was a major issue in the 2016 election. Voters balked at the idea of giving that supreme power to the Queen of Corruption, the Bonnie Parker of Illegal E-Mails. Trump was empowered to nominate justices for his entire term of office.
The media told us conservatives had a 5-4 majority prior to Ginsberg’s death. This was meant to soothe us into a false sense of complacency.
In reality, it’s now 4-4 at best. Chief Justice John Roberts is a turncoat who sides with the left (Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor) on the really important stuff. That’s why a replacement for Ruth Bader Ginsburg has become the center of a storm that makes Hurricane Laura seem like a summer breeze.
At the time of the Kavanaugh circus, I said it was a dress rehearsal for choosing Ginsburg’s replacement. World War III just broke out.
For decades, the judiciary has been the left’s House of Lords. It can lose the presidency. It can lose Congress. But as long as it has the courts – the Supreme Court in particular – democracy is in chains.
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Yep. I think Judicial Review is useful, but they really simply arrogated that one to themselves in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison).
They stopped upholding the Constitution in the 1930s because post-17th Amendment popularly elected senators kowtowed to the wishes of a wildly popular Leftist FDR.
More specifically, as a consequence of generations of parents not making sure that their now adult voter children are being taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those power so be understood, constitutionally low-information voters abuse their power to vote for senators and presidents in the following way.
Ordinary voters are clueless that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the feds the specific powers to establish the benefits and social spending programs that corrupt federal politicians now regularly promise to voters to get themselves elected, unconstitutional (imo) Obamacare a recent example.
In fact, the congressional record shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the Founding States had left the care of the people uniquely to the states, not the feds.
”[…] the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphases added].” —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See about middle of 3rd column.)
So regardless that people are playing the blame game, again, it can be argued that low-information voters have been instrumental in unconstitutionally expanding the powers of the federal government by abusing their voting powers.
The remedy for our constitutionally failed system…
Send "Orange Man Bad" federal and state government desperate Democrats home in November!
Supporting PDJT with a new patriot Congress and state government leaders that will promise to fully support his already excellent work for MAGA and stopping SARS-CoV-2 will effectively give fast-working Trump a "third term" in office imo.
I don’t see any problem with voting Republican ticket for 2020 elections.
Insights welcome.
My own state’s GOP is a dump, some legislative members of which helped pass a bill that effectively allows our dead to vote. I’m guessing that means when somebody dies, he’s not automatically purged from the voter rolls.
For all I know, my late mother has already voted for Biden.
I thought it was bad already but when the squealers on the left started squealing that the “dying wish” of a deceased judge should have the force of law I thought they had reached a new level of insanity. What if her dying wish had been that her replacement should be a chimpanzee?
They can always come up with a clever rationale for whatever they want to do,. .”
There’s nothing clever about it. They lie and if there are enough votes...that’s it!
FDR didn’t start the movement, but he was in fact the one who actually did what they had wanted. He inherited a government still functioning mostly along constitutional means and left it Arbitrary government after him.
Go ahead and tell them they must pay you in gold or silver and see what happens.
Sadly a bunch of them would be happy with that outcome.
Got the Constitution to back me.
Just because the FRNs say they are money that doesn’t make them gold or silver coin.
At the very minimum there should be no taxes whatsoever levied on transactions for gold and silver.
Saw a story advertised on OANN about ballots from 2018 found in a landfill somewhere.
Bump
I thought her dying wish was for Chuck U Schumer to have “asshat” tattoed on his forehead.
Look what progressives tried to pass in 1916.
https://twitter.com/jiwallner/status/1309002110395183107
No, that one is mine.
Even the earliest progressives in the 19th century were against everything this country was founded to be. They wanted what the French Republic had: a government with loosely defined responsibilities and the means to achieve it left entirely up to the political process.
A form of what the Founders called Arbitrary government.
The reason they hated Marbury for so long is because properly understood it actually prevented everything that they wanted, for the ability to review statutes was clearly presented as an obligation arising only from a greater fidelity on account of an oath to the Law and not what 20th century progressives have misrepresented it as the right for the courts to make stuff up as they go along. And an obligation arising from fidelity offers no pretext for infidelity.
And, while you’re at it, you may want to consider Frothingham from, IIRC, 1913, which stripped private persons from having Standing to pursue a private prosecution of a public right: IOW challenge the government when it exceeds its enumerated powers.
Progressives have ALWAYS been various shades of un-American. And they started bad and have only become worse.
That in itself would’ve required a Constitutional Amendment.
Some aspects of it are appealing to a degree, however, because something should be done about pissant local or district judges with no standing acting as though they can either override an entire state legislative action, initiative or the President. In those instances, I see that only the highest court (state or federal) should be able to issue an immediate injunction.
I’m not a big fan of Marbury myself. I think it’s allowed the courts to set themselves up as the final arbiters of what is law, even when their rulings are blatantly anti-Constitutional (see Roe, Obergefell).
That is how it has been misrepresented to create the modern Court.
But Marbury has been badly misrepresented. For one it was not the case that saw it considered correct to decide between a statute and the Constitution, something Marshall points out at length. That case, considered unremarkable for the most part, was about a statute that assigned an administrative function to jurists as part of overseeing the pensions of Revolutionary war veterans.
Yet people act as if that wasn’t a thing until Marbury.
Rather Marbury’s decision has a very exacting structure because the question of original jurisdiction, rather than appellate, had been clearly set forth in the Constitution and in the matter of a Writ of Mandamus the Court proper did not have original jurisdiction.
That is why, after Marshall sets forth both the prior history and the plain case for William Marbury and the rest deserving their Writ of Mandamus, Marshall finally get to the real meat of the matter asking if it could be issued from the Court directly rather than on appeal.
What Marshall then does is really poison to progressivism, for he discusses the only proper methodology for review. That methodology is one only rationally destructive of claims for government power, not constructive to make innovations lawful as the modern Court lawlessly maintains.
Most critically after setting forth fidelity required by the oath of office as justification for review, saying that it is worse that a solemn mockery to require them to take such an oath and then to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and see only statute, Marshall himself notes that those in other departments take such an oath.
So let me ask you, what then is it to require the Congress or a president to take such an oath but then require them to turn a blind eye to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court if not likewise and for the exact same reasons something worse than a solemn mockery?
Marbury is not the great strength of the modern Court. That is why it must be constantly misrepresented.
We need separation of Bar and Judiciary.
Better a government crippled to act than one asserting power to act in all circumstances whatsoever.
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.