Fast Track Is Unconstitutional

Toogood Reports ^ | December 5, 2001 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Sith Lord]

The truth is that this flawed argument is promoted by isolationists and protectionists who don't like trade agreements with foreign countries.

America was isolationist and protectionist for most of her history. You may have heard of an advisor to the early Republic, Friedrich List, who wrote National System of Political Economy. Lincoln also advocated protective tariffs--one of the few things I agree with him on. That is America's tradition, and the Republican Party used to be for protecting jobs and industry.

[Sith Lord]

Despite what any of us may think, it will be upheld as law, and be in full force and effect, if the Supreme Court thinks it's Constitutional.

More reason why there needs to be a Constitutional amendment mandating periodic Senate reconfirmation for the Justices every 8 years, and Congress needs to restrict the Court's appellate jurisdiction in areas it has been known to legislate from the bench in.

[Twodees]

Precedent, or case law is not law at all for two entities in our judicial system. Two entities in our system are unbound by the doctrine of stare decisis. Do you know which entities those are?

[Quila]

"That's a very sad and telling statement. The myth we've been sold is that anything may be declared constitutional by the Supremes, whether or not there is any basis in the text of the document for it. Nowadays, the Supreme Court consists of 9 venal, self serving lawyers who don't care a whit for the country, the Constitution or the people."

I know. When you have nasty people like that in charge, you end up with things like the conservative majority violating the Constitution in order to steal a presidential election for their compatriots. (runs for cover.....)

No, I don't like Al Gore. I was just making a point I've made before. People scream judicial activism ("rewriting the Constitution") for decisions they don't like, and then turn around and claim those same nine "venal, self serving lawyers" did the right thing when they agree with the decision.

Don't forget, when you're screaming activism, there's always millions of others applauding the decision, and vice versa. Just realize that under our system, what they say is Constitutional is by definition Constitutional, no matter how much we may cry. Besides, I think those people know a lot more about Constitutionality (and they have lots of clerks to help them) than any of us will ever know. Well, I'm not so sure about Clarence Thomas.

"Precedent, or case law is not law at all for two entities in our judicial system. Two entities in our system are unbound by the doctrine of stare decisis. Do you know which entities those are?" If Congress doesn't like the way case law went, they can make a new law to get around it. Think of cases such as Communications Decency Act (AKA Internet censorship law). It was called too vague and overbroad, so Congress came out with Child Online Protection Act (AKA CDA II) to get around that.

Of course, the Supreme Court has reversed the precedent of itself and lower courts on several occasionas. Still, some precedents are so tight, and have been supported so many times, that there's little chance of a reversal ever happening because of the whim of current politics.

[Twodees]

No, Congress is not an entity of the judicial system. You got one of the two entities right. The Supreme Court and the jury are the two entities in our judicial system unbound by precedent.

The Supreme Court makes rulings as though they are bound by precedent at times, and the judiciary has been on a campaign to hide from jurors the fact that they may rule as they please, judging the law as well as the facts of the case.

[Quila]

"No, Congress is not an entity of the judicial system. "

Oops, gotta read more slowly, I didn't see the "judicial system" part.

"The Supreme Court makes rulings as though they are bound by precedent at times" They're not bound, but they don't break precedent lightly either. I agree 100% on jury veto though.

[Twodees]

Thomas has an undue reverence for Supreme Court precedent. He refers to "judicial consistency" as a reason for preserving earlier court rulings. If the Supremes aren't ever going to overturn an earlier SC ruling, then there's really no advantage in replacing them. We should just clone the ones we have and grant them hereditary lifetime tenure.