Curbing Judicial Activism

[PoliticalChic]

You obviously didn't go to law school because you would be 100% wrong if you studied it.

Did you miss this, dope?


2. "The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Unless you can quote the section that includes the word "INTERPRET" in the Constitution, you will have been identified as a dupe of the Progressives, willing to bend the knee and lower the head to the decrees of the corrupt and self-aggrandizing individuals disguised in black robes.



Shall I wait....or plan to go on with my life.



Or, is this the coward's way of beating a hasty retreat?

You bitch about judicial activism on the left yet ignore the judicial activism on the right making corporations into people with deeply held religious beliefs that they can force onto their employees.

Vulgarity generally means that either you are inarticulate, or, as in this case, you realize that you have been made to look like a fool.


You wrote:
"The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Are you retracting this lie?


Are you still reading the Constitution (note the capital "C"), in which case we'll agree that you, not I, haven't read the Constitution.


Or is changing the subject your next attempt to save face?



I'll be happy to rub your face in your lack of understanding of what 'judicial activism' is as soon as you either answer the question, or wave the white flag.

 

[saveliberty]

Judges apply the law to cases. Somehow the less informed started using interpret, which is never the case.

Corporations are used to create a "legal being". It can have legal actions on it's behalf or against it. Predominately used to protect an actual person or persons. I am a little confused how a corporation can have a consciousness of political thought and therefor a political leaning. Further, conflicting opinons most likely exist within the corporate body, so it seems unlikely there is a single political view.

 

[JFK_USA]

Did you miss this, dope?


2. "The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Unless you can quote the section that includes the word "INTERPRET" in the Constitution, you will have been identified as a dupe of the Progressives, willing to bend the knee and lower the head to the decrees of the corrupt and self-aggrandizing individuals disguised in black robes.



Shall I wait....or plan to go on with my life.



Or, is this the coward's way of beating a hasty retreat?

You bitch about judicial activism on the left yet ignore the judicial activism on the right making corporations into people with deeply held religious beliefs that they can force onto their employees.

Vulgarity generally means that either you are inarticulate, or, as in this case, you realize that you have been made to look like a fool.


You wrote:
"The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Are you retracting this lie?


Are you still reading the Constitution (note the capital "C"), in which case we'll agree that you, not I, haven't read the Constitution.


Or is changing the subject your next attempt to save face?



I'll be happy to rub your face in your lack of understanding of what 'judicial activism' is as soon as you either answer the question, or wave the white flag.

You honestly think Article 3 of the US Constitution does not give judges the ability to interpret the laws? Wow. That's like elementary school knowledge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You bitch about judicial activism on the left yet ignore the judicial activism on the right making corporations into people with deeply held religious beliefs that they can force onto their employees.

Vulgarity generally means that either you are inarticulate, or, as in this case, you realize that you have been made to look like a fool.


You wrote:
"The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Are you retracting this lie?


Are you still reading the Constitution (note the capital "C"), in which case we'll agree that you, not I, haven't read the Constitution.


Or is changing the subject your next attempt to save face?



I'll be happy to rub your face in your lack of understanding of what 'judicial activism' is as soon as you either answer the question, or wave the white flag.

You honestly think Article 3 of the US Constitution does not give judges the ability to interpret the laws? Wow. That's like elementary school knowledge.

You wrote:
"The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."


It takes a certain kind of low-life to refuse to admit to being wrong when the truth is staring him in the face.

Another term for same is "Liberal."

 

[Cecilie1200]

You bitch about judicial activism on the left yet ignore the judicial activism on the right making corporations into people with deeply held religious beliefs that they can force onto their employees.

Vulgarity generally means that either you are inarticulate, or, as in this case, you realize that you have been made to look like a fool.


You wrote:
"The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Are you retracting this lie?


Are you still reading the Constitution (note the capital "C"), in which case we'll agree that you, not I, haven't read the Constitution.


Or is changing the subject your next attempt to save face?



I'll be happy to rub your face in your lack of understanding of what 'judicial activism' is as soon as you either answer the question, or wave the white flag.

You honestly think Article 3 of the US Constitution does not give judges the ability to interpret the laws? Wow. That's like elementary school knowledge.

In other words, "I know it does. The fact that I say I know it is enough. I can't show you where, so instead I'll just say you're stupid for asking."

Epic fail.

Care to try for strike two?

 

[saveliberty]

You honestly think Article 3 of the US Constitution does not give judges the ability to interpret the laws? Wow. That's like elementary school knowledge.

I explained that as simply as I could. They apply law, not interpret. I guess when Constitutional lawyers become president and ignore same document, simple folk like yourself it confused. I blame Obama.

 

[JFK_USA]

Vulgarity generally means that either you are inarticulate, or, as in this case, you realize that you have been made to look like a fool.


You wrote:
"The constitution states that judges have the ability to INTERPRET the constitution and the constitutionality of the laws passed."

Are you retracting this lie?


Are you still reading the Constitution (note the capital "C"), in which case we'll agree that you, not I, haven't read the Constitution.


Or is changing the subject your next attempt to save face?



I'll be happy to rub your face in your lack of understanding of what 'judicial activism' is as soon as you either answer the question, or wave the white flag.

You honestly think Article 3 of the US Constitution does not give judges the ability to interpret the laws? Wow. That's like elementary school knowledge.

In other words, "I know it does. The fact that I say I know it is enough. I can't show you where, so instead I'll just say you're stupid for asking."

Epic fail.

Care to try for strike two?

No.

Article 3 of the US Constitution is one of the shortest articles in the Constitution. That means there is plenty of room for interpretation. And different people can make different arguments about the specific case. Just because it doesn't agree with your narrative doesn't make it wrong nor does it mean judicial activism.

Conservatives have failed to make the argument beyond a specific religion as to why a certain group of people should be banned from a social service. That's not judicial activism, that's you failing to make a sound legal argument.

 

[saveliberty]

You honestly think Article 3 of the US Constitution does not give judges the ability to interpret the laws? Wow. That's like elementary school knowledge.

In other words, "I know it does. The fact that I say I know it is enough. I can't show you where, so instead I'll just say you're stupid for asking."

Epic fail.

Care to try for strike two?

No.

Article 3 of the US Constitution is one of the shortest articles in the Constitution. That means there is plenty of room for interpretation. And different people can make different arguments about the specific case. Just because it doesn't agree with your narrative doesn't make it wrong nor does it mean judicial activism.

Conservatives have failed to make the argument beyond a specific religion as to why a certain group of people should be banned from a social service. That's not judicial activism, that's you failing to make a sound legal argument.

Maybe if you actually read it? It lists duties and scope of the job. As with the rest of the Constitution, if something is not specifically mentioned, the rights fall to states and individuals.

As to the Obamacare argument, there is no need for further argument. Religious rights are guaranteed in the Constitution. You don't need to meet multiple rights for it to be protected.

Your grasp of the Constitution and law are very limited perhaps you should argue in threads you have a better working knowledge of the subject matter.

 

[Nemo]

Every time the federal courts come out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment, there is a great outcry about "liberal judges," "conservative judges," "activist judges" - not to mention a general call to "reform" the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law: witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)

Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.

Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

 

[JFK_USA]

In other words, "I know it does. The fact that I say I know it is enough. I can't show you where, so instead I'll just say you're stupid for asking."

Epic fail.

Care to try for strike two?

No.

Article 3 of the US Constitution is one of the shortest articles in the Constitution. That means there is plenty of room for interpretation. And different people can make different arguments about the specific case. Just because it doesn't agree with your narrative doesn't make it wrong nor does it mean judicial activism.

Conservatives have failed to make the argument beyond a specific religion as to why a certain group of people should be banned from a social service. That's not judicial activism, that's you failing to make a sound legal argument.

Maybe if you actually read it? It lists duties and scope of the job. As with the rest of the Constitution, if something is not specifically mentioned, the rights fall to states and individuals.

As to the Obamacare argument, there is no need for further argument. Religious rights are guaranteed in the Constitution. You don't need to meet multiple rights for it to be protected.

Your grasp of the Constitution and law are very limited perhaps you should argue in threads you have a better working knowledge of the subject matter.

I have read the Constitution and Article 3. You are right that it describes the scope and the job of the courts and gives the right to a jury trial for all criminal proceedings. However it does not state how judges are supposed to rule. That's what PC wants the courts to do. To rule in the way she wants them to rule.

And PC started this by saying case law doesn't matter. Yes it does. That's how we have our rulings. That's why Marbury vs. Madison is the foundation of our judicial process. Case law matters.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Every time the federal courts come out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment, there is a great outcry about "liberal judges," "conservative judges," "activist judges" - not to mention a general call to "reform" the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law: witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)

Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.

Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

What utter nonsense.


Every time the courts provide a decision not based on the Constitution, we have proof of a judiciary corrupt and unrestrained.

That is what is meant by 'judicial activism.'



"Every time the federal courts come out with a decision that is contrary to popular sentiment,..."

You dope....it is the people who were meant to have the power, not thieves in black robes who overturn elections.


"Marshall said, is not Congress, not the states, not for that matter the Supreme
Court of the United States. The people are the ultimate
source of authority; they have parceled out the authority that
originally resided entirely with them by adopting the original
Constitution and by later amending it."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[PoliticalChic]

No.

Article 3 of the US Constitution is one of the shortest articles in the Constitution. That means there is plenty of room for interpretation. And different people can make different arguments about the specific case. Just because it doesn't agree with your narrative doesn't make it wrong nor does it mean judicial activism.

Conservatives have failed to make the argument beyond a specific religion as to why a certain group of people should be banned from a social service. That's not judicial activism, that's you failing to make a sound legal argument.

Maybe if you actually read it? It lists duties and scope of the job. As with the rest of the Constitution, if something is not specifically mentioned, the rights fall to states and individuals.

As to the Obamacare argument, there is no need for further argument. Religious rights are guaranteed in the Constitution. You don't need to meet multiple rights for it to be protected.

Your grasp of the Constitution and law are very limited perhaps you should argue in threads you have a better working knowledge of the subject matter.

I have read the Constitution and Article 3. You are right that it describes the scope and the job of the courts and gives the right to a jury trial for all criminal proceedings. However it does not state how judges are supposed to rule. That's what PC wants the courts to do. To rule in the way she wants them to rule.

And PC started this by saying case law doesn't matter. Yes it does. That's how we have our rulings. That's why Marbury vs. Madison is the foundation of our judicial process. Case law matters.

"However it does not state how judges are supposed to rule."


Well.....let's enlighten you to the correct method:



1. "[The activist judge's view] seems instead to be based upon the proposition that federal
judges, perhaps judges as a whole, have a role of their own, quite independent of popular will, to play in solving society’s problems.

Once we have abandoned the idea that the authority of the courts to declare laws unconstitutional is somehow tied to the language of the Constitution that the people adopted, a judiciary exercising the power of judicial review appears in a
quite different light.

a. Judges then are no longer the keepers of the covenant; instead they are a small group of fortunately situated people with a roving commission to second-guess
Congress, state legislatures, and state and federal administrative officers concerning what is best for the country. Surely there is no justification for a third legislative branch in the federal government, and there is even less justification for a federal
legislative branch’s reviewing on a policy basis the laws
enacted by the legislatures of the fifty states."
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf

 

[saveliberty]

No.

Article 3 of the US Constitution is one of the shortest articles in the Constitution. That means there is plenty of room for interpretation. And different people can make different arguments about the specific case. Just because it doesn't agree with your narrative doesn't make it wrong nor does it mean judicial activism.

Conservatives have failed to make the argument beyond a specific religion as to why a certain group of people should be banned from a social service. That's not judicial activism, that's you failing to make a sound legal argument.

Maybe if you actually read it? It lists duties and scope of the job. As with the rest of the Constitution, if something is not specifically mentioned, the rights fall to states and individuals.

As to the Obamacare argument, there is no need for further argument. Religious rights are guaranteed in the Constitution. You don't need to meet multiple rights for it to be protected.

Your grasp of the Constitution and law are very limited perhaps you should argue in threads you have a better working knowledge of the subject matter.

I have read the Constitution and Article 3. You are right that it describes the scope and the job of the courts and gives the right to a jury trial for all criminal proceedings. However it does not state how judges are supposed to rule. That's what PC wants the courts to do. To rule in the way she wants them to rule.

And PC started this by saying case law doesn't matter. Yes it does. That's how we have our rulings. That's why Marbury vs. Madison is the foundation of our judicial process. Case law matters.

Case law doesn't trump the Constitution however. There are dissenting opinions frequently and as the body of the court changes we see refinements or reversals. The biggest flaw in the judicial process is selection of justices. It is a political filter.

 

[Nemo]

Marbury v Madison was the seminal case that defined the boundary between the separation of powers. Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law, until overturned by the court, legislative act, or by constitutional amendment. Indeed, it would not be possible for the court to exercise that grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution without interpreting its provisions. In this, the power of the judicial branch is limited; and the federal courts have always been self-limiting under long-standing provisions of abstention and principles of comity; and more recently under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

Congress has the power to further limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts not expressly conferred, albeit that it would not be in its interest - or the interest of the nation - to do so, for without the power of the judiciary, the acts of the legislative branch would not be enforceable except by unchecked executive power. The power of the judiciary is at the very core of the constitutional system of checks and balances. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws. . ." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The sword of justice cuts both ways, and in its sway guards over our individual rights and liberty. It is the same today.

 

[saveliberty]

Marbury v. Madison was not an invitation to judicial activism. The Supreme Court was meant to function as a body outside politics for the most part. FDR and others have tried to bring it into the realm of politics. Activist courts corrupt checks and balances.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marbury v Madison was the seminal case that defined the boundary between the separation of powers. Under Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, and such other lower federal courts as the Congress may establish, with jurisdiction over cases and controversies arising under the Constitution and substantial cases where there is diversity of citizenship subject to the limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the interpretation of the Constitution, and its decisions are binding as law, until overturned by the court, legislative act, or by constitutional amendment. Indeed, it would not be possible for the court to exercise that grant of jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution without interpreting its provisions. In this, the power of the judicial branch is limited; and the federal courts have always been self-limiting under long-standing provisions of abstention and principles of comity; and more recently under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983).

not expressly conferred, albeit that it would not be in its interest - or the interest of the nation - to do so, for without the power of the judiciary, the acts of the legislative branch would not be enforceable except by unchecked executive power. The power of the judiciary is at the very core of the constitutional system of checks and balances. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote: "The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws. . ." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). The sword of justice cuts both ways, and in its sway guards over our individual rights and liberty. It is the same today.

Take the blinders off.

"Congress has the power to further limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts."

Only true on paper; in reality, the efforts of the judiciary and the executive are geared toward accumulating as much power as possible.


1. In 1793, the Supreme Court claimed jurisdiction over a sovereign state (Chisholm v. Georgia).

a. The court claimed that the preamble referred to the desires "to establish justice" and "to ensure domestic tranquility," and this gave the court the right to resolve any disputes. Justice Wilson went right for the throat: "To the Constitution of the United States the term SOVEREIGN, is totally unknown."
Chisholm v. Georgia | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism


2. This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The agreement was that federal courts could hear such suits when they had been initiated by the states. And that is exactly what is stated in the 11th amendment: federal court's jurisdiction had to be read narrowly!

a. The 11th amendment explicitly denies the federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits "prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

b. The issue was about exactly how much authority had been granted to the federal courts through the Constitution. The purpose of this amendment was to limit federal courts to the strict confines of article III.
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,"p.56, Kevin R. C. Gutzman





3. In 1801, John Marshall was appointed Chief Justice, and he consistently tried to reduce any limits on federal power. Case in point, in the 1821 decision in Cohens v. Virginia, he found that the 11th amendment only banned suits against states that were initiated in federal courts.

Nonsense: this was not the intent of the amendment, but rather an intent to extend the jurisdiction of the federal courts and the federal government.

Yet this is the sort of dissembling that you and other dis-respecters of the Constitution hide behind.





4. Marshall represents a pivotal point in the pirating of power by the federal government.
Consider the Judiciary act of 1789, in which section 25 hands powers to the court: " One of the most controversial provisions of the act, Section 25, granted the Supreme Court jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions from the high courts of the states when those decisions involved questions of the constitutionality of state or federal laws or authorities." History of the Federal Judiciary

a. Had Marshall read the amendment through the prism of it's intended purpose, how would he have viewed section 25?
Yup: unconstitutional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Marbury v. Madison was not an invitation to judicial activism. The Supreme Court was meant to function as a body outside politics for the most part. FDR and others have tried to bring it into the realm of politics. Activist courts corrupt checks and balances.

Wish I had another rep for this post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Chief Justice Marshall's chief sin is not judicial review but his repudiation of the Jeffersonian understanding of the limits of federal power.

In McCulloch v Maryland, Marshall "wrote that while the Articles of Confederation had specified that Congress had only the powers it was 'expressly delegated,' the Constitution included no such language, so no such principle applied to it.

This was an extraordinary argument, given that Marshall himself and other Federalists … had assured their ratification colleagues that this very principle of limited federal power … was implicit in the unamended Constitution even before the Tenth Amendment was adopted."
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R.C. Gutzman, p. 91

 

[Nemo]

The criticism of judicial activism (i.e., "playing politics") was addressed squarely by Circuit Judge Stanley F. Birch in the appeal of the Schiavo case. The Eleventh Circuit, which is probably the most conservative appellate court in the country, did not reach the question of the validity of "Terry’s Law" (Pub.L 109-3), but one need not read between the lines of Judge Birch’s special concurring opinion to know that the court would have ruled the Act unconstitutional. In a stinging rebuke of the President and Congress, Judge Birch wrote:

‘A popular epithet directed by some members of society, including some members of Congress, toward the judiciary involves the denunciation of "activist judges." Generally, the definition of an "activist judge" is one who decides the outcome of a controversy before him or her according to personal conviction, even one sincerely held, as opposed to the dictates of the law as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately, our Constitution. In resolving the Schiavo controversy it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution.
. . .

‘The separation of powers implicit in our constitutional design was created "to assure, as nearly as possible, that each branch of government would confine itself to its assigned responsibility." INS, 462 U.S. at 951, 103 S.Ct. at 2784. But when the fervor of political passions moves the Executive and the Legislative branches to act in ways inimical to basic constitutional principals, it is the duty of the judiciary to intervene. If sacrifices to the independence of the judiciary are permitted today, precedent is established for the constitutional transgressions of tomorrow. See New York, 505 U.S. at 187, 112 S.Ct. at 2434. Accordingly, we must conscientiously guard the independence of our judiciary and safeguard the Constitution, even in the face of unfathomable human tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo and her family and the recent events related to her plight which have troubled the consciences of many. Realizing this duty, I conclude that Pub. L. 109-3 is an unconstitutional infringement on the core tenets underlying our constitutional system. Had Congress or the Florida legislature, in their legislative capacities, been able to constitutionally amend applicable law, we would have been constrained to apply that law. See Robertson v. Seattle Audobon Soc’y, 503 U.S. 429, 441. 112 S.Ct. 1407, 1414 (1992). By opting to pass Pub. L. 109-3 instead, Congress chose to overstep constitutional boundaries into the province of the judiciary. Such an Act cannot be countenanced. Moreover, we are bound by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine not to exercise any other jurisdictional bases to override a final state judgment. Should the citizens of Florida determine that its law should be changed, it should be done legislatively. Were the courts to change the law, as the petitioners and Congress invite us to do, an "activist judge" criticism would be valid.’ Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, etc., et al. v. Michael Schiavo, etc., et al., Docket No. 05-00530-CV-T-22-TBM, Special Concurring Opinion, 404 F.3d 11270 (Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, March 30, 2005).

 

[saveliberty]

I have never really considered Constitutional amendments applying to our courts. Perhaps one mandating the Supreme Court to review all Constitutional challenging rulings by lower courts is in order. I have reservations about that, as often times being close to the event makes it too political at the time.