Should Supreme Court Decisions Be Ignored???

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by PoliticalChic, Jan 18, 2020.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,348
    Thanks Received:
    25,153
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,381
    1. Discussing the Supreme Court, Thom Hartmann, SuperProgressive, wrote this:

    “Nobody doubted that the Supreme Court had the power to strike down the law [ObamaCare] in its entirety, or to uphold it entirely, or even to rewrite parts of it or parse it into pieces, which is what happened. Similarly, nobody questioned why the most powerful branch of government, the one with the final say over pretty much everything, was also the one that never had to submit itself to we the people in an election or suffer any other form of account- ability.”



    2. The next question is where the Constitution, the law of the land, the only set of laws that the people of this nation have agreed to be governed by, states that the Supreme Court has power over the executive or the legislative branches?

    It says no such thing.

    The authority for same does not exist.



    3. The glaring, and momentous, mistake on the part of the Founders, was the Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts) Branch of the government.
    Before any excuse for the error is mounted , it should be noted that the Constitution does not provide for what is called ‘judicial review,’ nor is the concept found in English law.



    4. In Marbury vs Madison, John Marshall accomplished the most significant theft in our political history.

    Jefferson wrote to Abigail Adams, Sept. 11, 1804:

    "Nothing in the Constitution has given them (judges) a right to decide for the Executive, more than to the Executive to decide for them ...
    But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional, and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action, but for the legislature and executive also, in their spheres, would make the judiciary a DESPOTIC branch."




    5. Well, if the Constitution doesn’t state that the Supreme Court decision must be the final word, what happens to Presidents who challenge that pretend authority?

    Nada.

    “Jefferson: to “consider the judges the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    Jackson: “The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both.”

    Lincoln: “If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court . . . the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.” First Inaugural Address

    Franklin Roosevelt: Proposed speech stating that if the Supreme Court should invalidate a certain New Deal measure, he would not “stand idly by and... permit the decision of the Supreme Court to be carried through to its logical inescapable conclusion.” Quoted in Kathleen M. Sullivan et al., “Constitutional Law,” pg. 20– 24 (15 ed., 2004).



    Would anyone be surprised if Trump did the same???
     
    • Winner Winner x 3
    • Funny Funny x 2
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. DGS49
    Offline

    DGS49 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    Messages:
    8,205
    Thanks Received:
    1,887
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Pittsburgh
    Ratings:
    +8,543
    Well of course, this is settled law and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere.

    But parenthetically one might recall that day a few years ago when the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that the state's Constitution prevented discrimination in marriages between heterosexual couples and gay couples. There was absolutely no precedent for this decision; it was Judicial Activism writ large. That decision, coupled with the constraints on amending the Massachusetts Constitution (which took a minimum of two years to accomplish, once the tedious formalities were out of the way) GUARANTEED that "gay marriage" would be the law of Massachusetts for YEARS, and there was nothing that anybody could do about it. Furthermore, even if the Massachusetts legislature rebelled against the decision and amended the Constitution to ban gay "marriage," there would be a virtual army of people who had already been married in Massachusetts, whose status would probably be "carved in concrete" and never assailable again, either in Massachusetts courts or Federal. And taking it a step further, people married in Massachusetts, even if citizens of another state, would henceforth be married EVERYWHERE due to the Full Faith & Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

    So if there were ever a case where the Executive had the right and the opportunity to challenge the infinite supremacy of the Judiciary over law, this was it. Governor Mitt Romney (now Senator of Utah) could have said to the state and county employees processing marriage applications, "Ignore this decision; we will wait until the legislature acts on the issue. But for now, the law remains as it has been for 200+ years." But HE DIDN'T DO THAT.

    And the rest is history. Pity.
     
  3. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,348
    Thanks Received:
    25,153
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,381
    6. Ultra-Liberal Thom Hartmann, admits that there is no basis for the misunderstanding implied in the word ‘supreme,’ as in Supreme Court.


    “Thom Hartmann, the most popular progressive radio host in America (amazon)” writes:

    “…the framers empowered the Supreme Court for two main reasons: first, to hear disputes between the United States and foreign countries, and between the individual states; second, to be the final court of appeals.



    But nowhere does the Constitution explicitly say that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what is or is not “constitutional,” or to strike down (or make or modify) laws or policies for the United States.” “The Hidden History of the Supreme Court and the Betrayal of America,” Hartmann, p. 24




    7. John Marshall was at odds with Jefferson, who he mocked as "the great Lama of the mountains."(NYTimes)

    This was because Jefferson recognized that the Supreme Court had become a threat to the idea of limited constitutional government.

    "He worried that the Court had eliminated all checks on its power by misreading the clear messages of Article III and the eleventh amendment." "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution," Kevin R. C. Gutzman



    Misreading??? Hardly. The Court stole the power, and the two real branches were fine with that.

    The Constitution isn’t.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,348
    Thanks Received:
    25,153
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,381


    It may be 'settled law,' but the more accurate title would be settled theft.

    Either the Constitution is the law of the land, or, as Progressives believe....it isn't.

    In no place and in no way is the Supreme Court authorized to surpass the two elected branches.



    Case law, while ascendant today, is a bastardization of the Founder's views.
    You may or may not be familiar with the work of these two 'thieves' of the law.


    1. Progressives have altered the role of the Supreme Court in a dramatic way: no longer should its role be to apply law as written. Instead, it was the application of German social science to American law.

    ... law must leave "conceptions" and open itself up to social realities of the modern world.”…[endng]the backwardness of law in meeting social ends,…”http://www.drbilllong.com/Jurisprudence/Pound.html


    2. [Roscoe Pound] was perhaps the chief U.S. advocate of sociological jurisprudence, which holds that statutes and court decisions are affected by social conditions; his ideas apparently influenced the New Deal programs of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt.Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions



    3. Instead of following the Constitution, 'social justice' is to be pursued from the bench by following the dictates of unelected judges.....caselaw.

    "Christopher Columbus Langdell ....Before Langdell's tenure, the study of law was a technical pursuit. Students were told what the law is. However, at Harvard Langdell applied the principles of pragmatism to the study of law. Now, as a result of this innovation, lawyers are taught the law through a dialectical process of inference called the case method. The case method has been the primary method of pedagogy at American law schools ever since. The case method has since been adopted and improved upon by schools in other disciplines, such as business, public policy, and education. Students such as Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. would ensure that Langdell's innovation would not go unnoticed. Christopher Columbus Langdell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    There is no excuse for this corruption of jurisprudence except for a hatred of America, is simply proof of the adage "one only finds justice in the dictionary and the cemetery."
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,348
    Thanks Received:
    25,153
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,381


    "...and questioning judicial review will get you nowhere."

    You may simply accept what you are told.....but the master that I serve is truth.

    You will be able to find no error in any of my posts.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  6. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    35,615
    Thanks Received:
    6,295
    Trophy Points:
    1,240
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +50,519
    The commie states have been ignoring the Heller case big time.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,348
    Thanks Received:
    25,153
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,381

    Monday may be quite a day in Virginia....
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    90,348
    Thanks Received:
    25,153
    Trophy Points:
    2,260
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +62,381
    8. “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

    Those are the famous words uttered by President Andrew Jackson in relation to U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall’s 1832 decision in Worcester v. Georgia to strike down a Georgia law that imposed regulations on the comings and goings of white people in Native American land.

    This ruling was foundational in establishing the general idea that Native Americans have some degree of sovereignty in their interaction with U.S. governments. The words and actions of President Jackson in relation to the opinion is a historic event exemplifying the ever present debate over state and federal power and the role of the courts in our modern times.Remembering the Time Andrew Jackson Decided to Ignore the Supreme Court In the Name of Georgia’s Right to Cherokee Land




    9. That was Andrew Jackson, father of the modern Democrat Party. And the Court backed away.

    “The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision, as had become standard.[5] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce.[6][7] This may be seen as a prudential decision, for avoiding the possibility of political conflict between the Court and the Executive, while still delivering what appeared to be a pro-Indian decision.” Worcester v. Georgia - Wikipedia

    “The fact remained, however, that in this case and in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), when it was ruled that the Bank of the United States was in fact constitutional, Jackson challenged the Court’s authority as the final arbiter. As president, Jackson believed that his authority to deem what was constitutional equaled the Supreme Court’s.” Andrew Jackson and the Constitution | AP US History Study Guide from The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History




    Jackson was, or course, correct.

    10. “. . some have argued that the President—in certain circumstances—has an independent power to interpret the Constitution, and a concomitant power to ignore or defy court orders if the President comes to a good faith conclusion that the courts have erred.” “Ex Parte Merryman: Myth, History, and Scholarship,” Seth Tillman



    The pronouncements of the Supreme Court should be treated as the red and green lights are in Rome.....as merely a suggestion.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    35,615
    Thanks Received:
    6,295
    Trophy Points:
    1,240
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +50,519
    [​IMG]
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  10. Flash
    Offline

    Flash Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2014
    Messages:
    35,615
    Thanks Received:
    6,295
    Trophy Points:
    1,240
    Location:
    Florida
    Ratings:
    +50,519

    The problem with the gun right oppression is that the courts have been reluctant to apply strict scrutiny to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms like they do other individual Constitutional rights.

    Because of that the commie states have got away with ignoring the Constitution.

    I am hoping that because the Supremes have agreed to hear this recent New York case about restricting firearms from being transported that they are doing it for the purpose of deciding the level of scrutiny the states must apply to the 2nd.
     

Share This Page