The Supreme Court: Don't Get Your Hopes Up

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 119175

Thank you CeeCee
1. Wasn't it Marbury v Madison that started
the business of Judicial review? And don't
some hardcore Constitutionalists still question
that authority to this day?

2. I always questioned judicial precedent by case law,
because bad interpretations could repeat without correction.
but I understand it also means LEGISLATION should create
or change laws, NOT JUDICIAL RULINGS.

3. Wasn't it Jefferson who said the ultimate check on
govt was reason and common sense among the people.

Ironically Jefferson did not believe leaders should PANDER
to public opinion either. He did believe it was sometimes possible
or necessary for leaders to make divinely guided judgment that
went against popular opinion, if God had some higher wisdom or reasons
that perhaps the public did not know.

Either way I find this dangerously close to believing in divine right to rule
if people put faith in govt, either judges or presidents to make decisions
for people instead of arriving at decisions by consensus that represents
the public interests.

1. John Marshall established the principle of judicial review, drawing on Hamilton’s Federalist #78, by which the Court had authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional.

2. "And don't
some hardcore Constitutionalists still question
that authority to this day?"
What the heck is a "hardcore Constitutionalist"???


3. The problem hidden in there is exactly what the authority of the Court is.
It was embezzlement from the start....
The Founders knew that, by man's nature, aggrandizement would always be sought; this included the courts. So, March 4, 1794, Congress passed the 11th amendment:
"The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State."

a. You see, in 1792, Virginia had refused to respond to the Court at all (Grayson, et. al. v. Virginia) (Page 26 of 44) - The Impact of State Sovereign Immunity: A Case Study authored by Shortell, Christopher.





4. Remember, the original conception for our government was federalism, "... a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (such as states or provinces).
Federalism is a system based upon democratic rules and institutions in which the power to govern is shared between national and provincial/state governments,..." Federalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As they own the schools and the media, the simpleminded have been trained to foam at the mouth whenever they hear the phrase "states rights."

a. Again: the understanding of the colonies that ratified the Constitution was one in which they retained a degree of sovereignty.




5. But, 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



This was not what the Federalists had argued when the Constitution was being debated.
The Courts formed an illicit bond with the executive branch, advancing unlimited powers.

Hi PoliticalChic
A. what I mean by hardcore Constitutionalist
is the equivalent of someone taking the Bible "literally" and will not
accept any changes or interpretations, additions like the Federal
Reserve, they deem to be contrary to the original Articles.
I know some Libertarians who are so hardcore they will
reject most of govt and it is hard to work on reform if
they already consider the current programs/policies to be VOID.

B. For your post above, I would say only where people/states
CONSENT to give the federal govt authority to settle disputes
is this so. Otherwise, just like with our religious beliefs,
if we disagree in our political beliefs; NO I do NOT see people
agreeing to give up consent and authority to federal govt to decide.

The liberals I know agree to this WHEN GOVT RULES IN THEIR FAVOR.
but the minute the ruling conflicts with their beliefs they claim
"separation of church and state" which is the liberal equivalent
of saying religious freedom or civil liberties without govt infringement.

"A. what I mean by hardcore Constitutionalist
is the equivalent of someone taking the Bible "literally" and will not
accept any changes or interpretations, additions like the Federal
Reserve, they deem to be contrary to the original Articles."

Hi....
1. "....someone taking the Bible "literally" ..."
I take the Constitution literally....as it was meant to be understood.
Article five explains how to change it....literally.

2. "...will not
accept any changes or interpretations,...."
Clearly, accepting article five ends your objections.

'interpretation'
in·ter·pre·ta·tion
inˌtərprəˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. the action of explaining the meaning of something. Google

It's in English...why would interpretation be necessary?

1. “Originalism,” Steven Calabresi,....
2. As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’
   1. For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe we should consider appointing federal judges to a 10 year term instead of a life time.

How about we simply demand that they relate every decision they make to the words of the Constitution?

As explained by Rehnquist, here:

The brief writer’s version

[Liberal judicial activism] 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.
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf




If they can't do that, they get no vote on the Court.

 

[task0778]

The Amendment process allows us to change the Constitution as necessary. It's not supposed to be changed arbitrarily by the 9 individuals on the SCOTUS.

 

[task0778]

Maybe we should consider appointing federal judges to a 10 year term instead of a life time.

How about we simply demand that they relate every decision they make to the words of the Constitution?

As explained by Rehnquist, here:

The brief writer’s version

[Liberal judicial activism] 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.
THE NOTION OF A LIVING CONSTITUTION*

WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol29_No2_Rehnquist.pdf




If they can't do that, they get no vote on the Court.

Do you think many of them care about what we demand? I doubt it, they're gonna do what their politics dictate relative to the current issues. For some of them we are no longer a nation guided by the rule of law, but rather the rule of the majority.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back on point: the Supreme Court as it was meant to be was utterly destroyed by the Franklin Roosevelt regime....


9. To see the change in the Court wrought by Roosevelt, read the turn-about by Justice Charles Evans Hughes.


a. In invalidating the Guffey-Vinson Coal Act on May 18, 1936, less than a year before Roosevelt attempted to pack the court, Justice Charles Evans Hughes said that federal laws restricting local labor relations provisions were unconstitutional, that "the relations of employer and employee is a local relation" and "the evils are all local evils over which the federal government has no legislative control."




"....over which the federal government has no legislative control."
As per the United States Constitution.
Absolutely true and correct.



He went on to say "Otherwise in view of the multitude of indirect effects Congress in its discretion could assume control of virtually all of the activities of the people to the subversion of the fundamental principles of the Constitution." And..."... it is not for the court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3824&context=clevstlrev


"control of virtually all of the activities of the people"....the aim of Roosevelt, in keeping with the propensities of his pals, Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin.



And in a concurring opinion holding (298 U. S. 238) the Bituminous Coal Act of 1935 in conflict with the Constitution, this was said by Chief Justice Hughes:
"If the people desire to give Congress the power to regulate industries within the State, and the relation of employers and employees in those industries, they are at liberty to declare their will in the appropriate manner; [by the amendment process] but it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision." Undermining the Constitution - A History of Lawless Government, by Thomas James Norton -Chapter VIII



"it is not for the Court to amend the Constitution by judicial decision."
He said this while he was still an American ....

b. But....eleven months later, Chief Justice Hughes, spoke for the majority in finding the Wagner Labor Relations Act constitutional. Yes, he said...Congress could regulate labor relations in manufacturing plants.


And so ended that noble experiment, America.
R.I.P.

 

[Wry Catcher]

View attachment 119175

Stare Decisis facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Stare Decisis

Hmmmm...^^^ food for thought for those who think.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 119175

Stare Decisis facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Stare Decisis

Hmmmm...^^^ food for thought for those who think.

So....you're here to argue in favor of the Dred Scott Decision???




BTW....Stare Decisis

Mentioned where in the Constitution?


Oh...it isn't.

It is simply part of my statement in the OP:

"....rather, [the Judges] insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document."


In other words, one more meaningless post by a dunce, you.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Any still believe we can get the toothpaste back in the tube?

Sure you can, all it takes is a pressurized tube to force it back in..

Or just open up the flat, stamped end and just scoop it back in.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Back on point: the Supreme Court as it was meant to be was utterly destroyed by the Franklin Roosevelt regime....

Nah, I would say that was done by Lincoln in the Civil War and it was codified via the 14th Amendment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

View attachment 119175

Stare Decisis facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Stare Decisis

Hmmmm...^^^ food for thought for those who think.

So....you're here to argue in favor of the Dred Scott Decision???




BTW....Stare Decisis

Mentioned where in the Constitution?


Oh...it isn't.

It is simply part of my statement in the OP:

"....rather, [the Judges] insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document."


In other words, one more meaningless post by a dunce, you.

I don't read your threads, they are all the same. I point out these facts: You are a narcissist and antisocial (Cluster B of Personality Disorders), you are obsessed beyond the parameters of a common iconoclast, and every thread you author should have these words of Rod Serling played over your written words in every OP:

“This highway leads to the shadowy tip of reality: you're on a through route to the land of the different, the bizarre, the unexplainable...Go as far as you like on this road. Its limits are only those of mind itself. Ladies and Gentlemen, you're entering the wondrous dimension of imagination. . .
Next stop The Twilight Zone.”

I only go so far on this road as to see who you've insulted, whose character you've chosen to assassinate and which fools thanked you for your shadowy tip of reality.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 119175

Stare Decisis facts, information, pictures | Encyclopedia.com articles about Stare Decisis

Hmmmm...^^^ food for thought for those who think.

So....you're here to argue in favor of the Dred Scott Decision???




BTW....Stare Decisis

Mentioned where in the Constitution?


Oh...it isn't.

It is simply part of my statement in the OP:

"....rather, [the Judges] insist on injecting their own views in place of that noble document.

Why?

Human nature, self aggrandizement, desire for status and power, have corrupted the Court from the start.
But.... it was the machinations of the 32nd President that forever changed the role of the Court.
Read this thread...and you will weep for the late, great, United States of America, the one memorialized in said document."


In other words, one more meaningless post by a dunce, you.

I don't read your threads, they are all the same. I point out these facts: You are a narcissist and antisocial (Cluster B of Personality Disorders), you are obsessed beyond the parameters of a common iconoclast, and every thread you author should have these words of Rod Serling played over your written words in every OP:

“This highway leads to the shadowy tip of reality: you're on a through route to the land of the different, the bizarre, the unexplainable...Go as far as you like on this road. Its limits are only those of mind itself. Ladies and Gentlemen, you're entering the wondrous dimension of imagination. . .
Next stop The Twilight Zone.”

I only go so far on this road as to see who you've insulted, whose character you've chosen to assassinate and which fools thanked you for your shadowy tip of reality.

Don't you just love it when dopes out themselves as liars, posting constantly in these threads, yet writing "I don't read your threads."

Gads, what a maroon.



Bet he's still looking for Stare Decisis in the Constitution, after I sunk his previous post (in a thread he doesn't read).



And when I'm finished with him, this will be his epitaph:
"Oh, no...it wasn't the airplanes....it was beauty that killed the beast."

 

[PoliticalChic]

10. Control of the Supreme Court, and their validation of clearly unconstitutional edicts, had an effect on the economy: by 1938, unemployment was back up to nearly 20 percent as the economy slumped again. The stock market crashed nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938.


Should have been a warning right there!




[To] "explain the 1937-38 debacle: The stage was set for the collapse with the passage of the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 — better known as the “Wagner Act” and organized labor’s “Magna Carta.”

This law revolutionized American labor relations. It took labor disputes out of the courts of law and brought them under a newly created Federal agency, the National Labor Relations Board, which became prosecutor, judge, and jury, all in one. Labor union sympathizers on the Board further perverted this law, which already afforded legal immunities and privileges to labor unions. The U.S. thereby abandoned a great achievement of Western civilization, equality under the law.

The Wagner Act, or National Labor Relations Act, was passed in reaction to the Supreme Court’s voidance of NRA and its labor codes. It aimed at crushing all employer resistance to labor unions. Anything an employer might do in self-defense became an “unfair labor practice” punishable by the Board. The law not only obliged employers to deal and bargain with the unions designated as the employees’ representative; later Board decisions also made it unlawful to resist the demands of labor union leaders.
Hans F. Sennholz, “The Great Depression,” The Freeman, April 1975, p. 212-213





I hope everyone sees the relationship between the Wagner Act, and votes for Democrats.

It's the #1 strategy in the Democrat playbook.....and has nothing to do with justice, rectitude, nor the Constitution.

Or with America, as it was founded.

 

[PoliticalChic]

11. 'Out-Fascost-ing' Mussolini, the Fascist, from whom he took his New Deal, Roosevelt spread the sort of fear that Hitler and Stalin instilled.


“Property-minded citizens were scared by the seizure of factories, incensed when strikers interfered with the mails, vexed by the intimidation of nonunionists, and alarmed by flying squadrons of workers who marched, or threatened to march, from city to city.”
William E. Leuchtenburg, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932- 1940," p. 242.
And this was from one of Roosevelt's greatest boosters!


Oh....and lots of wiretapping, too!
Sound familiar?



Leftist Columnist Walter Lippmann wrote in March 1938 that “with almost no important exception every measure he [Roosevelt] has been interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of wealth.” A Failed Obama Hero, by Walter E.Williams

Get that???
FDR wanted the Depression to continue!!!!



" Between 1787 and 1930, our nation has seen both mild and severe economic downturns, sometimes called panics, that have ranged from one to seven years. During that interval, no one considered it to be the business of the federal government to try to get the economy out of a depression because there was no constitutional authority to do so.

It took Hoover, FDR and a frightened and derelict U.S. Supreme Court to turn what might have been a three- or four-year sharp downturn into a 15-year meltdown."
Ibid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

12. Franklin Roosevelt wasn't content to have the Congress, and the Supreme Court in his pocket...he greed for power knew no limits! He attacked, besmirched, and slandered any who made a living in the private economy that the so envied.



From the White House, and on the heels of the Wagner Act came a thunderous barrage of insults against business. Businessmen, Roosevelt fumed, were obstacles on the road to recovery. He blasted them as “economic royalists” and said that businessmen as a class were “stupid.”
William E. Leuchtenburg, "Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932- 1940," p. 183-184
and The FEE Store

After all, if we have lots and lots of peasants....victims.....they'll vote Democrat!



He followed up the insults with a rash of new punitive measures. New strictures on the stock market. Benjamin M. Anderson, "Economics and the Public Welfare: A Financial and Economic History of the United States, 1914-46," 2nd edition, p. 336.



Special powers granted to organized labor with the passage of the Wagner Act contributed to a “depression within a depression” in 1937 were imposed.

A tax on corporate retained earnings, called the “undistributed profits tax,” was levied. “These soak the rich efforts, left little doubt that the president and his administration intended to push through Congress everything they could to extract wealth from the high income earners responsible for making the bulk of the nation’s decisions about private investment.” Robert Higgs, “Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed After the War,” The Independent Review, Volume I, Number 4: Spring 1997, p. 573.





And so, by a twist of fate, under the shield of the perfect storm....what Franklin Roosevelt did to the Supreme Court, he did to the entire nation.