Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Congress has Constitutional power over the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction
9/28/2015 | David Whitaker

Posted on 09/28/2015 1:35:55 PM PDT by Pfesser

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; cardinal4; ColdOne; ...
We need term limits for the House, Senate, and SCOTUS!

21 posted on 09/28/2015 2:55:36 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (What do we want? REGIME CHANGE! When do we want it? NOW)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

I think it’s rarely used because our Congress is made up of cowards.


22 posted on 09/28/2015 2:57:47 PM PDT by Pfesser (I miss President Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: publius911
FDR threatened to add members to the SC when they didn't find in his favor on one of his New Deal programs. When the next one came up, I think it was SS, they found in his favor. He had put some fear into them. Soon enough, he had made one or two appointments to the SC, and he didn't need to pack the court. But make no mistake, he would have if he needed to.

Keep in mind, he threatened to pack a court that would not go along with his efforts to destroy the Constitution. What conservatives should be considering, in addition to changes to the jurisdiction of the lower courts, is increasing the number of judges on the Supreme Court in order to restore the Constitution, preventing blatant judicial overreach. If it is explained by someone who is capable of selling their reasoning, like Reagan used to and like Cruz or maybe Trump could, the American people would agree with restoration of their beloved Constitution.

23 posted on 09/28/2015 3:08:04 PM PDT by Defiant (I wouldn't have to mansplain if it weren't for all those wymidiots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

Because the Constitution also says that any bill requiring the action of both the House and Senate MUST go to the President for signature.

That doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be in every bill, and that the Congress shouldn’t fight the issue, but the president’s veto power is a consideration.


24 posted on 09/28/2015 3:46:01 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

And if the President vetoes, the Congress can override the veto.

Congress can vote to suspend the Supreme Court rulings on gay marriage and even Obamacare.

And it can also say that the Supreme Court may not have jurisdiction over these matters in the future.

The Congress of today consists of people who are by and large bought and paid for toadies, ignorant of the Constitution and of their responsibilities.

If we had this bunch in 1776, America would never have been born.

Makes one realize what a God-made miracle the Founders were.


25 posted on 09/28/2015 3:52:17 PM PDT by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: exit82

It takes 2/3rd to override and only 3/5th to overcome a filibuster. Congress is allowed to TRY to override a veto.


26 posted on 09/28/2015 3:56:19 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their Victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

Federalists like John Marshall claimed, a broad power of Congress to regulate the appeals process to the Supreme Court. Justice Story later opined that Congress possessed “the utmost latitude” in limiting classes of cases that could reach the Supreme Court, so long as “the whole judicial power” was “vested either in an original or appellate form, in some courts created under [Congress’s] authority.” Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee


27 posted on 09/28/2015 5:28:35 PM PDT by Pfesser (I miss President Reagan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser

Neither gutless nor ignorant. Treacherous. They don’t use their powers in this regard because it would end the gravy train their riding.


28 posted on 09/28/2015 6:10:12 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Voting is like choosing whether you'd prefer the crips or MS-13 to take over your neighborhood.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pfesser
So question the remains, why is this Congress so gutless or ignorant to use this power?

Simple answer, they approve of what the court is doing especially since they get to blame the court and lie to the voters about it.

29 posted on 09/28/2015 10:41:06 PM PDT by itsahoot (55 years a republican-Now Independent. Will write in Sarah Palin, no matter who runs. RIH-GOP)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Imo, we need a law that recognizes two truths.

1. Power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts ultimately.
2. The corrupt seek power. The ultimately corrupt seek ultimate power.

The law: You take the oath of office. You break that oath in act or spirit, you die.


30 posted on 09/29/2015 4:21:18 AM PDT by Grimmy (equivocation is but the first step along the road to capitulation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-30 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson