Is Obama Threatening The Supreme Court Justices?

[Intense]

Again, nowhere in the Constitution is the Supreme Court given the power to strike down a law of Congress, or a state. This is a power the Court too upon itself with no Constitutional authority.
Presidents have battled with the Court, Jackson supposedly saying: Marshall [Chief Justice] made his decision now let him enforce it. Jefferson helping to impeach a member of the Supreme Court and of course FDR and his court plan.

Let me guess..... Public School? Yes the Court has Jurisdiction over the Congress and the States regarding Constitutionality. It is a Fundamental Power. Jackson blew off the Supreme Court and the Trail of Tears resulted, Idiot. Great example of Tyranny there, Sparky.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I notice that the rw's don't mind that SCOTUS does indeed legislate from the bench or that they ignore the fact that our govt has three branches for a reason.

I firmly believe they will vote 5-4 (along party lines with Kennedy sucking up to the more powerful "conservatives") against the statute and their excuse will be that its unconstitutional but I can't help but wonder what the wacko rw's would say if they agree with the judge who found it Constitutional.

The right agrees with the Constitution only as long as its convenient.

 

[Liability]

To illustrate WHY regent is wrong.

Let's say that Congress passed a law prohibiting people from criticizing the President of the United States in any manner that suggested ridicule of the man or his policies. And let's say the Act then provided for criminal penalties including lengthy prison sentences for anybody who violated that prohibition.

The eager President then signed that law.

And then, regent decided that he was pissed off at President Romney. So he posted something at USMB suggesting that "Mormon," in the case of President Romney, ought to be spelled without the second "m."

Then (whoops) the FBI seizes the USMB membership records to identify which previously anonymous user was "regent." And they find him and arrest his ass and throw him in jail and get an indictment against him.

Regent goes to trial and his lawyer futilely invokes the First Amendment. Rejected. A jury convicts Regent. Regent stubbornly appeals. The case makes it to the SCOTUS. The lawyer tries to frame the issue:

Is a law that limits a person's free speech like that Act a violation or the Constitution's First Amendment "guarantee?" If so, should the Act be declared unConstitutional and therefore voided?

The Court says, "We can't do that. That's not our province. A majority of duly elected representatives in the Legislative Branch, in this representative democracy [sic], enacted it and the President signed it. Thus, the law is the law. The application to 'declare' the law 'unConstitutional' is therefore denied and the criminal conviction is therefore affirmed."

Is that the power we maintain the Court should have? Is that the full scope of the checks and balances we wish to have in this Constitutional Republic?

 

[Liability]

I notice that the rw's don't mind that SCOTUS does indeed legislate from the bench or that they ignore the fact that our govt has three branches for a reason.

I firmly believe they will vote 5-4 (along party lines with Kennedy sucking up to the more powerful "conservatives") against the statute and their excuse will be that its unconstitutional but I can't help but wonder what the wacko rw's would say if they agree with the judge who found it Constitutional.

The right agrees with the Constitution only as long as its convenient.

You don't "notice" any such thing. You are just an asshole.

The SCOTUS is not "legislating" from the bench. They are on the verge (I hope) of properly ruling on the INVALIDITY of a law due to the fact that it transgresses the Constitution.

If the SCOTUS were to rule otherwise, it would mean (plainly and simply) that we no longer live in a Constitutionally-bound Federal Republic of limited and enumerated powers.

 

[Intense]

regent is a massive douche bag.

Accordingly it pains me greatly to agree with any part of the shit he says.

Nevertheless, the notion of judicial review is NOT stated in the Constitution.

It exists because the SCOTUS said it exists.

BUT ... even so, I realize that there is a fair and rational and reasonable interpretation of what the Constitution DOES say that makes the concept of judicial review perfectly appropriate.

It is difficult to imagine our system of checks and balances actually working if the Judicial Branch did not have the power which the Court claimed for itself in Marbury v. Madison.

If there were no such thing as Judicial Review, and Congress passed some nonsensical piece of shit legislation (prompted by some arrogant pinhead President) and the pinhead President then signed it into law, that law could not be voided as a violation of the Constitution. No check. No balance.

The system is imperfect, but it is nonetheless readily apparent that "judicial review" is certainly a component part of Checks and Balances.

I have no problem with Judicial Review. I have no problem with the Court Adhering to Reason, even connecting the dots that are there. I have a problem with the Court connecting Dots that aren't there, or giving false weight to irrelevance. My problem with Marbury V.S. Madison wasn't Judicial Review, it was Marshal having Personal Involvement in the Case, He should have been Recused. I would also think that if a body had a ton of appointments to deliver within a specific time period, one would Notify through the Papers and have Each of the Appointees come to you in one specified place, rather than track them down one at a time. I guess there is not much hope for incompetence. Had I been in Madison's shoes, I would have acted the same.

 

[Intense]

The issue lay largely dormant until the nation arrived at the constitutional crisis that resulted from the Watergate affair and President Richard M. Nixon's involvement in that and other activities. Testimony before the Senate about the 17 June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters, located in the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C., made it clear that there were tape recordings made in the Oval Office that were relevant to the congressional investigation. Congressional committees and two special prosecutors demanded that President Nixon turn over the tapes. Subpoenas were then issued demanding, among other things, that Nixon personally testify and give the tapes in question to the federal District Court prosecuting the cases against those directly involved with the burglary and the subsequent cover-up. Following in Jefferson's steps in the Burr case, Nixon complied to an extent with these subpoenas, releasing some materials that had clearly been altered and edited, but claiming that other materials were protected by executive privilege.

In United States v. Nixon (1974), the Supreme Court of the United States, citing many landmark cases, including Chief Justice Marshall's opinions Marbury v. Madison (1803)and United States v. Burr, said that it was incumbent on the High Court to balance between the president's need for confidentiality in executing his constitutional duties, on the one hand, and "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice," on the other. The Court's unanimous opinion delivered by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger was careful to give great credence to the president's need for complete candor and objectivity from his advisors. The justices also recognized the need for a great degree of confidentiality for the internal deliberations of the executive branch of government. Chief Justice Burger agreed that, if military or diplomatic secrets were at stake, the Court might reach a different conclusion. However, given that President Nixon's claims were based on a blanket statement of executive privilege without claiming that any state secrets were at stake, the constitutional duty of the courts is to guarantee due process of law, something that Nixon's actions were gravely impairing, according to the Court. The justices ruled that President Nixon had to comply with the subpoena duces tecum issued by Chief Judge John J. Sirica of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Nixon immediately prepared to turn over the subpoenaed materials to Chief Judge Sirica.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401803373.html

 

[regent]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

 

[Intense]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

Idiot, The Congress cannot act outside of the Constitution without consequence. The Courts Role is to Interpret, and Apply Constitutional Law, and to Act when Government acts outside of it. It is part of the Checks and Balances. It is the Role of the Court to Settle such Arguments and abuses. Constitutional Amendment requires a 75% Majority for Ratification. That is not Simple Majority Rule but Super Majority, or Land Slide Support. Without that Support there are No New Powers, Short of Court Rule.

The abuse with Marbury, was not Judicial Review, but Personal involvement with Relatives among the Prime Parties directly involved in the Case and Prejudice.

 

[zutalors]

Ignore an order from the court in a case they are involved in? Not unless they want to face contempt charges and a default judgement for the other side.

What "case they are involved in"?

There is no case, there's just three jackasses who think they're more powerful than they are.

Only Congress has the power to subpoena a sitting president.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-Dqj4fHmM]Classic Movie Line #4 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

 

[Intense]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

The court actually ruled at least twice on the constitutionality of laws before Marbury. The only thing that distinguished that case is it was the first time a law was ruled unconstitutional. The interesting thing is that the law that was found unconstitutional actually expanded the power of the Supreme Court.

 

[Intense]

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

The court actually ruled at least twice on the constitutionality of laws before Marbury. The only thing that distinguished that case is it was the first time a law was ruled unconstitutional. The interesting thing is that the law that was found unconstitutional actually expanded the power of the Supreme Court.

I think Madison was the first Statist Progressive. He was an Empire builder. Look at the New York State Constitution, I thing the most used Phrase is "You Must". I think it really gets the Power Junkies off, to know that they can screw with us so much, so much in a way that Truth, Justice, and Fairness, sometimes has no part in the Equation. When we are short Person's of Integrity, in Positions of Responsibility, we are very Vulnerable to Despotism. We are not All Interchangeable, Merit Matters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

Do you have any concept to what the checks and balances are within the government?

 

[Intense]

When people start thinking the supreme court has no authority to rule on the constitutionality of a law I get this sick feeling and wonder if they ever finished school

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

Do you have any concept to what the checks and balances are within the government?

It is related to Education Policies and Priorities. Sometimes We All lose because of it. Sad and Pathetic. Sometimes they want Statesmen, sometimes Robots, sometimes Sheep, sometimes the Angry Mob. I'm at the point that when I hear Obama refer to the Middle Class, I believe he means, only Government and Union Worker's, while blowing off the rest of us. That's his new Middle Class. We are on the Menu.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If this is reference to my post, the question was where in the Constitution is the authority found for the Supreme Court to declare and act of Congress unconstitutional. And of course there is no authority stated. It comes from a Court case, probably the most important Court case to date, Marbury v. Madison. Do your homework and check it out. Some might remember Marbury as the case of the midnight judges.

Do you have any concept to what the checks and balances are within the government?

It is related to Education Policies and Priorities. Sometimes We All lose because of it. Sad and Pathetic. Sometimes they want Statesmen, sometimes Robots, sometimes Sheep, sometimes the Angry Mob. I'm at the point that when I hear Obama refer to the Middle Class, I believe he means, only Government and Union Worker's, while blowing off the rest of us. That's his new Middle Class. We are on the Menu.

I agree. Our liberties are no longer secure with idiots like regent having the ability to cast a vote.

 

[Intense]

Do you have any concept to what the checks and balances are within the government?

It is related to Education Policies and Priorities. Sometimes We All lose because of it. Sad and Pathetic. Sometimes they want Statesmen, sometimes Robots, sometimes Sheep, sometimes the Angry Mob. I'm at the point that when I hear Obama refer to the Middle Class, I believe he means, only Government and Union Worker's, while blowing off the rest of us. That's his new Middle Class. We are on the Menu.

I agree. Our liberties are no longer secure with idiots like regent having the ability to cast a vote.

Our Liberties depend on Voice,Witness, and Awareness, not on Censuring the Vote. What is the Saying? "A Rising Tide raises all boats". That applies to awareness and Education, as well as Economics. We need to Challenge and eradicate stupidity. That way, we all win.

 

[Listening]

It does not come from Marbury v Madison, it existed before that case was even filed.

It's plastered in the Federalist Papers.

The court actually ruled at least twice on the constitutionality of laws before Marbury. The only thing that distinguished that case is it was the first time a law was ruled unconstitutional. The interesting thing is that the law that was found unconstitutional actually expanded the power of the Supreme Court.

It had nothing to do with the case itself from what I recall. Marshall actually ruled against Marbury or didn't rule at all. But in his dicta, he proclaimed judicial review (or maybe clarrified it).

I am interested in the question Regent has asked. From what I recall Bork indicated this was a weakness in the way things were set up. However, what has not happened is the checks on the court.

And this really went away after FDR so blatantly offended the court with his infamous packing scheme and with his appointment of left wing lackys.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is related to Education Policies and Priorities. Sometimes We All lose because of it. Sad and Pathetic. Sometimes they want Statesmen, sometimes Robots, sometimes Sheep, sometimes the Angry Mob. I'm at the point that when I hear Obama refer to the Middle Class, I believe he means, only Government and Union Worker's, while blowing off the rest of us. That's his new Middle Class. We are on the Menu.

I agree. Our liberties are no longer secure with idiots like regent having the ability to cast a vote.

Our Liberties depend on Voice,Witness, and Awareness, not on Censuring the Vote. What is the Saying? "A Rising Tide raises all boats". That applies to awareness and Education, as well as Economics. We need to Challenge and eradicate stupidity. That way, we all win.

True enough

 

[percysunshine]

Never let a bureaucrat try to balance a check book.

It is one of the laws of thermodynamics.