Why Obey The Supreme Court?

American Thinker ^ | 7/3/06 | Steven M. Warshawsky

[RepublicanPatriot]

The Hamdan decision is part of a larger pattern whereby elite liberal institutions, e.g., the Supreme Court and the New York Times, increasingly consider themselves to be the supreme arbiters of the national interest, and to be authorized to undermine the policies and decisions made by the elected branches of the federal government. At some point, the federal government and the American people have to stop “enabling” this harmful behavior. That point is now.

[Graybeard58]

Why Obey The Supreme Court?

Andrew Jackson didn't.

[Just mythoughts]

There already is a Constitutional crisis, no longer are "the people" the government and the government is now the giver and taker of those unalienable RIGHTS!!!

[Eagles Talon IV]

Actually I am quite sure the USSC has no ability to enforce any of it's decisions.

[ncountylee]

Congress can withhold funds for court security. The courts would stop meeting and the damage would be limited.

[Ninian Dryhope]

Periodically, the Supreme Court has to be reminded of the limits of its powers. It is time to knock it down a peg, so that it avoids sticking its nose into matters that are none of its business. Once the Supreme Court gets its fingers burned, it will be more prudent in the future.

[linda_22003]

It's the power of the federal government which enforces them, not the Justices themselves. Remember, by any chance, school desegregation in the south in the 1950s and '60s...?

[sam_paine]

Actually I am quite sure the USSC has no ability to enforce any of it's decisions.

Yes but their militant MSM wing still has a large arsenal, and is willing to sacrifice American lives to beat America into submission.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

Preservation of rule of law demands the executive give great deference to the findings of the courts. The rule of law is something worth preserving, but please note, the lawlessness of the courts seems to be the greatest threat to rule of law these days.

Clearly, rule of law and rule by lawyers are two different things. For the rule of law to work, lawyers and most especially judges, must be true servants of the law.

[Military family member]

The problem began with the legislation. The Constitution states that it is the Supreme Law of the Land and SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter of that law. Congress cannot pass a law that bypasses that part of the Constitution.

Doesn't that start a rather dangerous precedent? If Congress and the President can bypass SCOTUS, then why wouldn't Congress just bypass POTUS and SCOTUS? What if the president decided to bypass Congress? Since many here seem to be conceding presidential victory to Hillary Clinton, wouldn't that start a rather frightening turn?

There is something the president could do, which has Constitutional and legal precedent: Increase the number of members. The Constitution does not call for 9 members; historically it has had more and even as few as five.

[jamese777]

What I found amazing is that a Navy Lieutenant Commander JAG officer(Charles Swift), serving as defense attorney for Osama bin Laden's driver was able to take his Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of Defense to the Supreme Court and win on behalf of a foreign national.

That chain of events in the chain of command could only happen in America.

[MineralMan]

While removing some of the power of the SCOTUS may seem like a good idea, it is not. Imagine, if you will, a liberal President and Congress, and a predominately conservative SCOTUS. This is a situation that could potentially arise, and earlier than you might think.

The separation of powers, as described in the Constitution, is the only thing that prevents any group from seizing control over our government.

It ain't perfect, but I don't see a better system.

Be careful what you wish for.

[bvw]

Re the court's recent ruling, and adherence thereto, the phrase "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such ..."

That is the case since Kelo, since Lawrence, since McConnell v FEC, and now the most recent ruling pulling in lies about the Geneva Convention as law.

Like Andrew Jackson once did, the President should ignore this ruling, and even go beyond Jackson's princibled stand -- officially rebuke the decision, reamrking that the USSC had no aurthority to rule either way on this issue.

[RepublicanPatriot]

The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power to define the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction. See Art. III, sec. 2. The Framers never envisioned, obviously, that the Supreme Court would become the only unchecked institution of the federal government.

[Tree of Liberty]

The Constitution states that it is the Supreme Law of the Land and SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter of that law. Congress cannot pass a law that bypasses that part of the Constitution.

Could you cite for me the article and section of the Constitution that grants SCOTUS that power? Where do they derive the authority to nullify or amend laws?

[ItsJeff]

Congress can withhold funds for court security. The courts would stop meeting and the damage would be limited.

I think that statement is more treasonous than anything the NYT has ever published.

[dayglored]

> There is something the president could do, which has Constitutional and legal precedent: Increase the number of members. The Constitution does not call for 9 members; historically it has had more and even as few as five.

I seem to recall that FDR tried exactly that, and it was determined that it was a bad plan overall...

[tarheelswamprat]

The problem began with the legislation. The Constitution states that it is the Supreme Law of the Land and SCOTUS is the supreme arbiter of that law.

The Constitution says no such thing. The Supreme Court is the supreme court of appeal for disputes arising under federal law. The Constitution does not make them the "arbiter" of the law - they have arrogated that power to themselves only because the other branches of government and the American people have allowed it.

Congress cannot pass a law that bypasses that part of the Constitution.

Artice III, Section 2 empowers the Congress to define and determine the areas of jurisdiction of the federal courts, including the Supreme Court. They passed a perfectly Constitutional law removing the issue of enemy combatant detainees from the Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court just ignored that lawful restriction.

In a sense, it is the Supreme Court which has now adopted Andrew Jackson's strategy, but in reverse. They have essentially said to Congress "You have passed your law, now we dare you to enforce it.

[dayglored]

> The Framers never envisioned, obviously, that the Supreme Court would become the only unchecked institution of the federal government.

The SCOTUS is not unchecked. The Court's time-frame (many decades) is necessarily -- and by careful design -- much longer than those of the Executive and Congress (6 years or less). Justices are placed on the Court for life, but all eventually retire or die.

It is only our (understandable) impatience that causes us to not see the Founders' wisdom in having one of the three branches work in very long periods.