How to replace Judial Review

[Contumacious]

How to replace Judial Review

Article III, to the extent that it was available, ended in 1935 when FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS.

Nowadays the "justices" duty is to perpetrate the fraud that judicial review is still available, they collect a steady paychecks and enjoy federal blue cross blue shield.

While it is true that they have been reduced to a cabinet level position, they properly recognized that neither the federal government nor the states have the authority to nationalize womens' uteri nor to prevent Americans from pursuing happiness by marrying whomever the fuck they decide.

.




-

 

[NYcarbineer]

The OP falsely assumes that the purpose of judicial review is to protect the STATES from the federal government.

It's as much the purpose of judicial review to protect the PEOPLE from their state governments enacting unconstitutional laws.

 

[rightwinger]

Now all Federal power rests in the Federal government. The people's power does too as the Federal Courts rule what is Constitutional.

I am proposing to balance Federal Power with State power, which you see as putting power in fewer hands. That's ridiculous.

Your proposal does nothing to offset the distribution of state and federal power.

All it does is shift political influence away from the people and to local politicians

You just answered your point in the first sentence with your second sentence.

As for away from the people, US Senators are representatives of the people they elected, local politicians are not. You really do not think these through, big guy...

If states want more power, they should start a war over it

Oh.....yea
They already tried that one

Maybe if they took power away from We the People they could get more power

 

[rightwinger]

The OP falsely assumes that the purpose of judicial review is to protect the STATES from the federal government.

It's as much the purpose of judicial review to protect the PEOPLE from their state governments enacting unconstitutional laws.

How true

Judicial review forces states to do nasty things like grant civil rights

 

[regent]

So far the Court has been careful to stay away from certain subjects, declaring them political in addition the Court selects only cases that it deems as needed, and once taken often follows a path the people want to go.
But suppose the Court made a new decision, such as no government act is legal until the Court reviews it and decides the law or act is legal?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your proposal does nothing to offset the distribution of state and federal power.

All it does is shift political influence away from the people and to local politicians

You just answered your point in the first sentence with your second sentence.

As for away from the people, US Senators are representatives of the people they elected, local politicians are not. You really do not think these through, big guy...

If states want more power, they should start a war over it

Oh.....yea
They already tried that one

Maybe if they took power away from We the People they could get more power

lol, I saw this the other day:

The 124 States of America

Imagine if all the secessionist movements in the history of the United States were successful.

 

[WillReadmore]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

Once again, your argument here is nonsense. America knew the court had this power from the very beginning. The framers knew it. The Federalist Papers cite it. It was in English law back to the 1600's or so. Those at the constitutional convention knew it. And, it's what makes sense.

Separation of powers has to do with the federal level division, not states rights.

Giving the executive branch the right to judge whether it is being constitutional in what it does is your nightmare. And, giving the legislative branch that right is not even slightly better.

You don't like a few ofthe rulings, but remember that we've had a Catholic majority on the bench for quite some time. Guessing that they are biased in FAVOR of same sex marriage and abortion is really just plain silly. Plus, overall, our court has been highly conservative for many years.

 

[Kosh]

This thread proves that the far left wants to rule without impunity and without opposition and wants to subjugate everyone under their religious ideology.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Having the Senate decide the constitutionality of laws is pretty close to letting the catcher call balls and strikes in a baseball game.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have to connect the self-interest dots as well.

Conservatives like kaz believe that changing the 17th amendment would make the Senate more conservative;

that's really all that's behind that cockeyed idea, despite the right's attempts to dress it up otherwise.

So of course, if you could move the Senate to the right by changing the 17th amendment,
why not go for the gold?

Why not effectively abolish the Supreme Court and put that power in the hands of your newly minted conservative Senate??

lol, it's genius! Genius, I say!!!

 

[rightwinger]

You have to connect the self-interest dots as well.

Conservatives like kaz believe that changing the 17th amendment would make the Senate more conservative;

that's really all that's behind that cockeyed idea, despite the right's attempts to dress it up otherwise.

So of course, if you could move the Senate to the right by changing the 17th amendment,
why not go for the gold?

Why not effectively abolish the Supreme Court and put that power in the hands of your newly minted conservative Senate??

lol, it's genius! Genius, I say!!!

More ruling from a minority by the GOP

 

[kaz]

Nope, that would not pit state versus federal government, but merely having both parties trying to control the State senates so as to get a leg up in D. C. This would not help state power whatsoever, because the states would want the federal $$$ funneled back down to them.

The House and President would still be elected and not appointed by the States. The Senate can only stop Unconstitutional behavior, it cannot vote the States money. Balance ... of power. Balance. That is the proposal. Not to mention that one State cannot vote itself money, if you vote yourself money, you are voting all States money, and consequencely your people to be taxed to pay for it, which reduces your ability to tax for State government. If you people had actual arguments, you would be glad to grasp what I said. That you can't grasp it doesn't speak to your believing you have actually affective arguments against it.

No, no, no, and you know it, so stop it.

It's about $$$, not about states' power.

Please give us a real argument.

There is nothing I can argue that would convince a liberal we need more State rights.

 

[kaz]

Your proposal does nothing to offset the distribution of state and federal power.

All it does is shift political influence away from the people and to local politicians

You just answered your point in the first sentence with your second sentence.

As for away from the people, US Senators are representatives of the people they elected, local politicians are not. You really do not think these through, big guy...

If states want more power, they should start a war over it

Oh.....yea
They already tried that one

Maybe if they took power away from We the People they could get more power

Power in the hands of State governments is taking power FROM the people and giving it to the Federal government is giving the people MORE power.

You're just in love with being a sheep even as you are lead to slaughter by that which you created. But hey, as long as the government checks keep coming in, eh big guy?

 

[kaz]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

Once again, your argument here is nonsense. America knew the court had this power from the very beginning. The framers knew it. The Federalist Papers cite it. It was in English law back to the 1600's or so. Those at the constitutional convention knew it. And, it's what makes sense.

Separation of powers has to do with the federal level division, not states rights.

Giving the executive branch the right to judge whether it is being constitutional in what it does is your nightmare. And, giving the legislative branch that right is not even slightly better.

You don't like a few ofthe rulings, but remember that we've had a Catholic majority on the bench for quite some time. Guessing that they are biased in FAVOR of same sex marriage and abortion is really just plain silly. Plus, overall, our court has been highly conservative for many years.

Once again, a liberal cannot address my actual argument...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison.

No, the constitution gave that power to the court, and all of the judiciary.

[/thread]

I'll give $100 to the ACLU if you can find that in the Constitution.

I'll never get with liberals when I even told you the case why you are willing to look stupid rather than take 30 seconds and Google what I just told you. It's fascinating.

READ section III it is clear as a fucking bell.

 

[kaz]

How to replace Judial Review

Article III, to the extent that it was available, ended in 1935 when FDR threatened to abolish the SCOTUS.

He didn't actually threaten to abolish SCOTUS, he threatened to stack it with his sycophants. And with his control of the Senate, it would have worked. But yeah, he's the one who did in State rights, I refer to that frequently as well. After that, SCOTUS killed the 10th amendment.

 

[WillReadmore]

The Supreme Court gave itself the power to decide what the Constitution means in Marbury v. Madison. Ever since, they used that power to re-write the Constitution. They make up law, such as the right to an abortion in Roe. v. Wade, strike down laws they don't like such as DOMA, twist words such as what equal protection in the 14th amendment. Then they let Constitutional abominations like the New London ruling and Obamacare stand. Just removing the power from them would be an advancement in liberty from what we have now.

Once again, your argument here is nonsense. America knew the court had this power from the very beginning. The framers knew it. The Federalist Papers cite it. It was in English law back to the 1600's or so. Those at the constitutional convention knew it. And, it's what makes sense.

Separation of powers has to do with the federal level division, not states rights.

Giving the executive branch the right to judge whether it is being constitutional in what it does is your nightmare. And, giving the legislative branch that right is not even slightly better.

You don't like a few ofthe rulings, but remember that we've had a Catholic majority on the bench for quite some time. Guessing that they are biased in FAVOR of same sex marriage and abortion is really just plain silly. Plus, overall, our court has been highly conservative for many years.

Once again, a liberal cannot address my actual argument...

You've got no argument.

And, I think you're learning that!

 

[kaz]

No, the constitution gave that power to the court, and all of the judiciary.

[/thread]

I'll give $100 to the ACLU if you can find that in the Constitution.

I'll never get with liberals when I even told you the case why you are willing to look stupid rather than take 30 seconds and Google what I just told you. It's fascinating.

READ section III it is clear as a fucking bell.

It is clear as a fucking bell, and it does not mention Judicial Review.

 

[kaz]

Once again, your argument here is nonsense. America knew the court had this power from the very beginning. The framers knew it. The Federalist Papers cite it. It was in English law back to the 1600's or so. Those at the constitutional convention knew it. And, it's what makes sense.

Separation of powers has to do with the federal level division, not states rights.

Giving the executive branch the right to judge whether it is being constitutional in what it does is your nightmare. And, giving the legislative branch that right is not even slightly better.

You don't like a few ofthe rulings, but remember that we've had a Catholic majority on the bench for quite some time. Guessing that they are biased in FAVOR of same sex marriage and abortion is really just plain silly. Plus, overall, our court has been highly conservative for many years.

Once again, a liberal cannot address my actual argument...

You've got no argument.

And, I think you're learning that!

Exactly, I'm not arguing for socialism, it's no argument.

It is funny how you consider a liberal circle jerk to be a compelling argument though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Coongress can get rif of a significant portion of the current power of review by simply limiting its appelate jurisdiction - doing this will limit its power only to cases in which it has original jurisdiction.