IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Posted on 10/23/2011 5:47:45 PM PDT by casinva
Republican presidential candidates are issuing biting and sustained attacks on the federal courts and the role they play in American life, reflecting and stoking skepticism among conservatives about the judiciary.
Gov. Rick Perry of Texas favors term limits for Supreme Court justices. Representatives Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas say they would forbid the court from deciding cases concerning same-sex marriage. Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, and for Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania want to abolish the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, calling it “a rogue court” that is “consistently radical.”
snip
Section 1 of Article III, for instance, confers life tenure on federal judges, saying they “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” But Mr. Perry, in his book “Fed Up!,” wrote approvingly of proposals “to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power.”
Whatever the difficulty of achieving that change, it is not without support in legal circles. “Perry’s idea has been advanced by me and numerous other academic critics of the court,” said Paul D. Carrington, a law professor at Duke. “On this point he is absolutely right.”
Mr. Perry also discussed allowing Congress to override Supreme Court decisions by a two-thirds vote. Assuming that the power of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 continues to be accepted, this too would require a constitutional amendment.
But the Marbury decision, which gave the Supreme Court the last word in interpreting the Constitution, has its critics. Mr. Gingrich, for instance, told the Values Voter Summit in October that “judicial supremacy is factually wrong, it is morally wrong and it is an affront to the American system of self-government.”
More.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
When you're a Republican with courageous conservatives like this in your list of candidates, you've got to be a little proud these days!
Ping please.
Great, term limit Scalia.
Newt’s speech was a barn burner on this issue...wow!!!
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Create an entirely new circuit court for the remainder of the area.
Another alternative is to relocate the courthouse for the 9th Circuit to Fairbanks Alaska.
For now maybe, but when was the last time conservatives served in a majority?
We both know that the republicans and the democrates will join forces to stop a conservative majority.
We conservatives must fight this fight as long as we live!
The only idea that has not been tried to cure our problems is the conservative ideology, why?, because it is the only way we can fix this mess the two liberal parties have gotten us into.
PLEASE CONSIDER DONATING TO FREE REPUBLIC TODAY OR BECOMING A MONTHLY DONOR
CLICK ON THE IMAGE ABOVE TO DONATE
I never really gave a lot of thought to the SOCTUS until I read Levin’s “Men In Black”.I didn’t even know who Levin was at the time.
But since I read this book, I have paid attention. The Judicial branch has been politicized and consequently, empowered. That was never the original intent.
Hammer..meet nail.
And that is the question that needs to be asked - I worry about the kind of Supreme Court Justice Mitt Romney would appoint...his wife is a Pro-Planned Parenthood suuporter and deep down Mitt has been and says he’s changed, but that bothers me somehow that he’d still pick a Justice with more liberal views.
What a laugh. As if the Court could assign powers to itself that the people via their Constitution did not confer.
In any case, the Marbury court did no such thing. Justice Marshall simply asserted that his branch, the judiciary, and all the branches, must follow the Constitution. Period.
Folks should read it for themselves instead of listening to self-serving lawyers. The opinion was written in plain English.
Practically the entire legal and political elite class, in both major parties, has bought into this nonsense, but it's one of the most destructive lies ever foisted upon the people of this country.
There's no place like Nome.
Perry is wrong about term limits for Judges. What ought be supported is the Constitutional provision of IMPEACHMENT.
I also agree with Mr.Newt and Rick Santorum on the efficacy of Congressional removal of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which has established a record as a rogue Court. America is still suffering under the evil done by FDR when he appointed liberals to the Court 37-41—and beyond. -see John Eidsmoe Christian Legal Advisor Mott Media 1984 p.172. Unless we weed out those who believe in a “living Constitution” that means whatever some a—hole Judge thinks it ought say —as opposed to what it factually says. we suffer the oligarchy of the despotic branch.(as Jefferson called it. I tend to agree with Newt that Marbury and its supposition that the supreme Court is the final authority is a misreading of the Constitution. Jefferson noted as much in letter to Justice Wm.Johnson ,1823) I dare suggest it is likewise a misreading of Marbury for Marshall clearly added that the framers intended the Constitution as a rule for the government of the Courts as well as the Legislature. If the Court is Not under the Constitution /subject to it— the entire system has been subverted.
That is true.
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.
