How to reform the Supreme Court

[legaleagle_45]

you did not enter anything into evidence that lousiana was invited to this party in the first place.

You did not enter into evidence that there is any requirement that Louisana be invited to this party. Lets see if there is anything in the Constitution , Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Nope not a darn thing about a requirement that anybody be invited, much less any proof that Louisana was so backward and out of touch they there would be a need for them to be "invited" or that they were in fact not "invited".

Can you cite me where the legal requirements of this "invitation" are located and how they can trump an express constitutional provision which requires 3/4ths of the states to ratify?

tona stands ratified.

LOL, Looney tunes thinks that you can ratify an amendment with less than 3/4ths of the states ratifying the amendmenent.

If that was the case then the current congress could propose an amendment and "invite" only those 20 states which they know will pass it, when they receive the affirmative votes of 15 of those "invited" states, declare the Constitutional Amendment valid... voila Congress legally avoids the current 38 state minimum to pass a constitutional amendment and gets one passed with only 15 ratifying states...

What else you going to come up with, some sort of new math where 13 is magically transformed into 14?

 

[KokomoJojo]

you did not enter anything into evidence that lousiana was invited to this party in the first place.

You did not enter into evidence that there is any requirement that Louisana be invited to this party. Lets see if there is anything in the Constitution , Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the
several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

Nope not a darn thing about a requirement that anybody be invited, much less any proof that Louisana was so backward and out of touch they there would be a need for them to be "invited" or that they were in fact not "invited".

Can you cite me where the legal requirements of this "invitation" are located and how they can trump an express constitutional provision which requires 3/4ths of the states to ratify?

tona stands ratified.

LOL, Looney tunes thinks that you can ratify an amendment with less than 3/4ths of the states ratifying the amendmenent.

If that was the case then the current congress could propose an amendment and "invite" only those 20 states which they know will pass it, when they receive the affirmative votes of 15 of those "invited" states, declare the Constitutional Amendment valid... voila Congress legally avoids the current 38 state minimum to pass a constitutional amendment and gets one passed with only 15 ratifying states...

What else you going to come up with, some sort of new math where 13 is magically transformed into 14?

last time I checked there were 16 states invited to the party.

lousiana was not party to the congress that passed the legislation to be ratified.

waiting.

 

[legaleagle_45]

fir you are incorrect.

First, you are incorrect. as fir is a conifer and has nothing to do with being correct or incorrect,

it is not "We the people"

Irrelevant to my argument and to Pendelton's argument

Henry was correct[/B],

Henry was incorrect.

it is "We the Estates", it has been determines as such in many court cases, see spies exparte v us

No such case exists, If you can not even cite a case properly what makes you think you can understand it? Further, the word estates nowhere appears in the case you mistakenly cite as spies exparte v us

 

[legaleagle_45]

last time I checked there were 16 states invited to the party.

waiting.

Last time I checked there were no states invited to the party nor is there any showing that an invitation was required

waiting.

 

[KokomoJojo]

last time I checked there were 16 states invited to the party.

waiting.

Last time I checked there were no states invited to the party nor is there any showing that an invitation was required

waiting.

try again,

lousiana was not party to the congress that passed the legislation to be ratified.


still waiting.

 

[KokomoJojo]

fir you are incorrect.

First, you are incorrect. as fir is a conifer and has nothing to do with being correct or incorrect,

it is not "We the people"

Irrelevant to my argument and to Pendelton's argument

Henry was correct[/B],

Henry was incorrect.

it is "We the Estates", it has been determines as such in many court cases, see spies exparte v us

No such case exists, If you can not even cite a case properly what makes you think you can understand it? Further, the word estates nowhere appears in the case you mistakenly cite as spies exparte v us

henry predicted right to the jot and jittle what would happen to this country and how we would lose our rights, he was correct.

People and people is relevant if you passed high school grammar.

 

[legaleagle_45]

try again,

lousiana was not party to the congress that passed the legislation to be ratified.

Irrelevant. Vermont, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were not a party to the the Bill of Rights either all being admited subsequent to Congress submitting the proposal in September of 1789.. yet they were included within the 11 necessary to ratify the Bill of Rights as of December 15 1791:

New Jersey, November 20, 1789; Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina,
December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25, 1790;
Delaware, January 28, 1790; New York, February 27, 1790; Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; Virginia, December 15, 1791.

Removing those 3 from the mix, means that there were only 8 ratifying states of the 11 states that were "invited to the party" in September 1789. Which means, according to you, that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution.

 

[legaleagle_45]

henry predicted right to the jot and jittle what would happen to this country and how we would lose our rights, he was correct..

No he didn't.

People and people is relevant if you passed high school grammar.

Fir and first are important for anyone who passed elementary school spelling.

 

[KokomoJojo]

try again,

lousiana was not party to the congress that passed the legislation to be ratified.

Irrelevant. Vermont, North Carolina, and Rhode Island were not a party to the the Bill of Rights either all being admited subsequent to Congress submitting the proposal in September of 1789.. yet they were included within the 11 necessary to ratify the Bill of Rights as of December 15 1791:

New Jersey, November 20, 1789; Maryland, December 19, 1789; North Carolina,
December 22, 1789; South Carolina, January 19, 1790; New Hampshire, January 25, 1790;
Delaware, January 28, 1790; New York, February 27, 1790; Pennsylvania, March 10, 1790; Rhode Island, June 7, 1790; Vermont, November 3, 1791; Virginia, December 15, 1791.

Removing those 3 from the mix, means that there were only 8 ratifying states of the 11 states that were "invited to the party" in September 1789. Which means, according to you, that the Bill of Rights is not part of the Constitution.

thats very interesting, if true suffice to say you just made the case that the us government is in fact a "defacto" house of cards from the beginning.

yes I would argue the bill of rights was not properly ratified until 1939.

 

[KokomoJojo]

henry predicted right to the jot and jittle what would happen to this country and how we would lose our rights, he was correct..

No he didn't.

People and people is relevant if you passed high school grammar.

Fir and first are important for anyone who passed elementary school spelling.

typos only count for fuck stick grammar nazis and those who fail to provide adequate argument.

Why dont you tell us the difference between People and people so we dont have to conclude you think they are the same.

its relevant to my argument, you already shot your toe off in your argument.

 

[KokomoJojo]

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

So you want to substitute the House and state legislatures for the SC?

No, I want to provide a check against 5 people that rule over all of us.

Why not just do away with the SC?

Because they serve an important function. They are not, however, omnipotent as the long list of AWFUL decisions clearly demonstrates.

Somebody has to make the call, in the US it's the SC

I would argue THE PEOPLE should ultimately make the call, not central planners or all powerful judges.

agreed!

and the only way that can be done without simultaneously destroying the good with the cancer is to remove judges as courtiers and replace them with jurys for everything. Judges can be advisors as they were intended.

Presently as a result of the way the constitution(s) were executed the courts are set up for the convenience of administration at the expense of justice, and only one party is represented in all cases against the state.

Presently one party, government judges, make decisions on contracts they are a party to, while operating as government officers unchallenged.

Summary judgment "by judge" should be completely abolished, it puts a single government officer in charge before the the jury even gets a chance to review the case. Then if you disagree you get to appeal at a mere additional cost of 500 bucks.

Judicial malfeasance by use of judicial discretion to force people to appeal after going through all the expense of suing in the first place has become a money making judicial/BAR racketeering industry in the US to bring more money into the court system and pad the BAR card holders pockets.

Likewise small claims courts should be abolished municipal courts for the similar reasons that were intended for strictly individuals to resolve disputes now are a rubber stamp RICO operation that attorneys are allowed into, mostly by summary judgment. The judge giving leeway to inexperienced pro se filers is nothing more than lip service and does not happen.

ALL cases before any court should be examined by a jury, by mandate, and appeals by grand jurys of people not associated with government office on one side of the table and government judges on the other side of the table.

Supreme court should be 2 sets of judges, one set government judges and one set people judges. Split decisions go to public referendum.

Voting records placed in the record and the ability for judges/jury members to serve by the demerit system. So many demerits they are gone.

ALL cases involving anyone vs government, meaning ordinance, bylaw, statute, any regulation against or affecting the individual man or woman or child in their personal capacity with exception to "business" should be funded by taxes as part of the governmental infrastructure maintenance.

Statutory law should be stripped of all presumption in favor of government entities as it is now.

The idea that the government is sovereign having greater rights and status over the people is the feudal version of sovereign and should be abolished and the playing field leveled. The idea a court can choose to simply ignore a complaint and pick and choose which cases they will hear should be abolished. Who ever thought up that fucked up dictator court practice in the first place? Probly some king.

The intrusion of your property rights by government putting your property up for collateral for their loans and if you cannot afford to pay taxes after they drive the economy into the ground then taking it from you should be abolished unless you are contracted with the state to that effect. The idea that ancient contracts apply to land you purchase if not fully disclosed upon the sale is repugnant to any form of law, anything non-disclosed within the 4 corners of the title and or contract does not exist.

You dont balance the internal administration of the microsoft corporation by creating departments across the hall from each other and claiming separation of government within microsoft why would anyone think that it is any different for government.

Without direct involvement from the people in a jury system there is no other means to self government available in this system.

If the laws are too complicated for the average man with the average iq to understand then it needs to be reviewed and remanded.

 

[KokomoJojo]

I could go with a type of term limit or mandatory retirement age. Unsure on other proposals but reform is necessary as your list of cases shows. I would add CitizensUnited, the Kelo case, for recent decisions broadly agreed to be wrong.

yep case in point!

I could give you several pages of cases that amount to nothing more than judicial abortion, each in favor of government presiding over people and or segregating the people from due process and their ability to "self" govern in favor of themselves.

 

[dcraelin]

I think your case, legal_eagle, for why Constitution wasn't illegal amounts to the ends justify the means...now i wouldnt turn away from it now, but for the founders to use phrase "Due process of law" I think shows that they were hypocrites because they did not follow the process themselves.

Patrick Henry does seem to be prophetic in his predictions as to where the "crazy machine" as he called the Constitution has got us to.

 

[legaleagle_45]

thats very interesting, if true suffice to say you just made the case that the us government is in fact a "defacto" house of cards from the beginning.

It is quite accurate.

yes I would argue the bill of rights was not properly ratified until 1939.

Of course you would. You are a loon who will go so far as to declare that the entire US Government is a "defacto" house of cards from the beginning in order maintain the argument that TONA was validly adopted... and apparently sees no contradiction in these conflicting assertions.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Why dont you tell us the difference between People and people so we dont have to conclude you think they are the same.

One begins with a capital letter and the other does not.

its relevant to my argument,

Of course it is because you are a loon.

 

[dcraelin]

The KELO decision is another example of why we need to reform the Federal judiciary. Kelo v. City of New London, which allowed the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private owner supposedly to further "economic development".

Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

That's how member of Congress should be selected. They should be dragged kicking and scream from their beds in the dead of night and forced to serve in Congress. No one who campaigns for the job should be given a seat.

 

[bripat9643]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

I think a 2/5 vote of state legislatures should be sufficient to overturn any legislation passed by Congress. If a law has that much opposition, then it's probably a bad law. The bias in government should be against passing legislation, not in favor of passing it. Most legislation is for the benefit of special interests and harmful for the general interest.

 

[bripat9643]

Draw names out of a group of eligible lawyers,judges

This was basically how it was in the Articles of Confederation

at the time of the revolution there were disputes between states over western territories. The states were very interested in coming up with a fair way to resolve the disputes. What they came up with in the Articles of Confederation was a kind of random system where the last step was drawing names out of a pool for the judges.

also have extra names drawn as replacements when main Judges should recuse themselves (which they should probably do more often)

You’ve got to be kidding, as this is a remarkable and disturbing display of ignorance.

And the Supreme Court is in no need of ‘reforming.’

Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that the USSC needs to be reformed. It's nothing but gang of handpicked bootlicking stooges.

 

[bripat9643]

We have a constitution now. End of story.

And the Constitution allows for amendments that could easily reform the SC back to its intended purpose...which it has FAR exceed.

Proposal - An Amendment that basically imposes:

• SC justice term limits
• Ability for a 3/5 vote from the House and Senate to override a majority opinion without being subject to Presidential veto
• Ability for 3/5 vote of the state legislatures to override a majority opinion

One only need to look a decisions like Marbury v Madison, Dred Scott V Sandford, Wickard v Filburn, Plessy v Ferguson, Korematsu v US, and many others to see that we need a remedy against a tyrannous and all powerful SC.

More ignorance and stupidity from the right.

Term limits and subjecting Supreme Court decisions to Congressional oversight not only violate the doctrine of an independent judiciary vital to the judicial process, but violate the fundamental tenet of Separation of Powers Doctrine essential to preventing the very tyranny the poster seeks to avoid.

Term limits wouldn't, but Congressional oversight would.